10-Q

UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20549

FORM 10-Q

(Mark One)

x QUARTERLY REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES
EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

For the quarterly period ended March 31, 2007

OR

o TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES
EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

For the transition period from                      to                     

Commission file number 1-8940

Altria Group, Inc.

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

Virginia	13-3260245
(State or other jurisdiction of	(I.R.S. Employer
incorporation or organization)	Identification No.)
120 Park Avenue, New York, New York	10017
(Address of principal executive offices)	(Zip Code)

Registrant’s telephone number, including area code (917) 663-4000

Former name, former address and former fiscal year, if changed since last report

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant is required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days.   Yes  x    No  o

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, or a non-accelerated filer. See definition of “accelerated filer and large accelerated filer” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act. Large accelerated filer  x    Accelerated filer  o    Non-accelerated filer  o

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act).  Yes  o    No  x

At April 30, 2007, there were 2,103,246,255 shares outstanding of the registrant’s common stock, par value $0.33 ¹/3 per share.

ALTRIA GROUP, INC.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

		Page No.
PART I -	FINANCIAL INFORMATION
Item 1.	Financial Statements (Unaudited)
	Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets at March 31, 2007 and December 31, 2006	3 - 4
	Condensed Consolidated Statements of Earnings for the Three Months Ended March 31, 2007 and 2006	5
	Condensed Consolidated Statements of Stockholders’ Equity for the Year Ended December 31, 2006 and the Three Months Ended March 31, 2007	6
	Condensed Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows for the Three Months Ended March 31, 2007 and 2006	7 - 8
	Notes to Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements	9 - 42
Item 2.	Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations	43 - 67
Item 4.	Controls and Procedures	68
PART II -	OTHER INFORMATION
Item 1.	Legal Proceedings	69
Item 1A.	Risk Factors	69
Item 2.	Unregistered Sales of Equity Securities and Use of Proceeds	69
Item 4.	Submission of Matters to a Vote of Security Holders	70
Item 6.	Exhibits	71
Signature		72

-2-

PART I – FINANCIAL INFORMATION

Item 1. Financial Statements.

Altria Group, Inc. and Subsidiaries
Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets
(in millions of dollars)
(Unaudited)

	March 31,		December 31,
	2007		2006
ASSETS
Consumer products
Cash and cash equivalents	$	2,189	$	4,781
Receivables (less allowances of $17 in 2007 and 2006)		2,725		2,808
Inventories:
Leaf tobacco		4,173		4,383
Other raw materials		1,012		1,109
Finished product		3,377		3,188
		8,562		8,680
Current assets of discontinued operations				7,647
Other current assets		1,181		2,236
Total current assets		14,657		26,152
Property, plant and equipment, at cost		15,183		14,882
Less accumulated depreciation		7,464		7,301
		7,719		7,581
Goodwill		6,597		6,197
Other intangible assets, net		1,903		1,908
Prepaid pension assets		781		761
Investment in SABMiller		3,772		3,674
Long-term assets of discontinued operations				48,805
Other assets		2,677		2,402
Total consumer products assets		38,106		97,480
Financial services
Finance assets, net		6,453		6,740
Other assets		50		50
Total financial services assets		6,503		6,790
TOTAL ASSETS	$	44,609	$	104,270

See notes to condensed consolidated financial statements.

Continued

-3-

Altria Group, Inc. and Subsidiaries
Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets (Continued)
(in millions of dollars, except share and per share data)
(Unaudited)

	March 31,			December 31,
	2007			2006
LIABILITIES
Consumer products
Short-term borrowings	$	435		$	420
Current portion of long-term debt		144			648
Accounts payable		1,074			1,414
Accrued liabilities:
Marketing		781			824
Taxes, except income taxes		3,059			3,620
Employment costs		458			849
Settlement charges		1,195			3,552
Other		1,586			1,641
Income taxes		74			782
Dividends payable		1,816			1,811
Current liabilities of discontinued operations					9,866
Total current liabilities		10,622			25,427
Long-term debt		6,843			6,298
Deferred income taxes		1,466			1,391
Accrued pension costs		537			541
Accrued postretirement health care costs		2,031			2,009
Long-term liabilities of discontinued operations					19,629
Other liabilities		1,885			2,658
Total consumer products liabilities		23,384			57,953
Financial services
Long-term debt		1,109			1,119
Deferred income taxes		5,209			5,530
Other liabilities		397			49
Total financial services liabilities		6,715			6,698
Total liabilities		30,099			64,651
Contingencies (Note 11)
STOCKHOLDERS’ EQUITY
Common stock, par value $0.33 1/3 per share (2,805,961,317 shares issued)		935			935
Additional paid-in capital		6,726			6,356
Earnings reinvested in the business		32,010			59,879
Accumulated other comprehensive losses		(1,544	)		(3,808	)
		38,127			63,362
Less cost of repurchased stock
(703,433,092 shares in 2007 and 708,880,389 shares in 2006)		(23,617	)		(23,743	)
Total stockholders’ equity		14,510			39,619
TOTAL LIABILITIES AND STOCKHOLDERS’ EQUITY	$	44,609		$	104,270

See notes to condensed consolidated financial statements.

-4-

Altria Group, Inc. and Subsidiaries
Condensed Consolidated Statements of Earnings
(in millions of dollars, except per share data)
(Unaudited)

	For the Three Months Ended
	March 31,
	2007			2006
Net revenues	$	17,556		$	16,232
Cost of sales		3,909			3,724
Excise taxes on products		8,519			7,546
Gross profit		5,128			4,962
Marketing, administration and research costs		1,878			1,833
International tobacco Italian antitrust charge					61
Asset impairment and exit costs		123			2
Recoveries from airline industry exposure		(129	)
Amortization of intangibles		6			5
Operating income		3,250			3,061
Interest and other debt expense, net		114			147
Earnings from continuing operations before income taxes, and equity earnings and minority interest, net		3,136			2,914
Provision for income taxes		1,051			374
Earnings from continuing operations before equity earnings and minority interest, net		2,085			2,540
Equity earnings and minority interest, net		40			57
Earnings from continuing operations		2,125			2,597
Earnings from discontinued operations, net of income taxes and minority interest		625			880
Net earnings	$	2,750		$	3,477
Per share data:
Basic earnings per share:
Continuing operations	$	1.01		$	1.25
Discontinued operations		0.30			0.42
Net earnings	$	1.31		$	1.67
Diluted earnings per share:
Continuing operations	$	1.01		$	1.24
Discontinued operations		0.29			0.41
Net earnings	$	1.30		$	1.65
Dividends declared	$	0.86		$	0.80

See notes to condensed consolidated financial statements.

-5-

Altria Group, Inc. and Subsidiaries
Condensed Consolidated Statements of Stockholders’ Equity
for the Year Ended December 31, 2006 and
the Three Months Ended March 31, 2007
(in millions of dollars, except per share data)
(Unaudited)

								Accumulated Other
								Comprehensive Earnings (Losses)
			Addi-		Earnings															Total
			tional		Reinvested			Currency									Cost of			Stock-
	Common		Paid-in		in the			Translation									Repurchased			holders'
	Stock		Capital		Business			Adjustments			Other			Total			Stock			Equity
Balances, January 1, 2006	$	935	$	6,061	$	54,666		$	(1,317	)	$	(536	)	$	(1,853	)	$	(24,102	)	$	35,707
Comprehensive earnings:
Net earnings						12,022															12,022
Other comprehensive earnings (losses), net of income taxes:
Currency translation adjustments									1,220						1,220						1,220
Additional minimum pension liability												233			233						233
Change in fair value of derivatives accounted for as hedges												(11	)		(11	)					(11	)
Other												(11	)		(11	)					(11	)
Total other comprehensive earnings																					1,431
Total comprehensive earnings																					13,453
Initial adoption of FASB Statement No. 158, net of income taxes												(3,386	)		(3,386	)					(3,386	)
Exercise of stock options and issuance of other stock awards				295		145												359			799
Cash dividends declared ($3.32 per share)						(6,954	)														(6,954	)
Balances, December 31, 2006		935		6,356		59,879			(97	)		(3,711	)		(3,808	)		(23,743	)		39,619
Comprehensive earnings:
Net earnings						2,750															2,750
Other comprehensive earnings (losses), net of income taxes:
Currency translation adjustments									92						92						92
Net loss and prior service cost												73			73						73
Change in fair value of derivatives accounted for as hedges												(10	)		(10	)					(10	)
Total other comprehensive earnings																					155
Total comprehensive earnings																					2,905
Adoption of FIN 48 and FAS 13-2						711															711
Exercise of stock options and issuance of other stock awards (1)				370														126			496
Cash dividends declared ($0.86 per share)						(1,810	)														(1,810	)
Spin-off of Kraft Foods Inc.						(29,520	)		89			2,020			2,109						(27,411	)
Balances, March 31, 2007	$	935	$	6,726	$	32,010		$	84		$	(1,628	)	$	(1,544	)	$	(23,617	)	$	14,510

(1)	Includes $179 million increase to additional paid-in capital for the reimbursement from Kraft for Altria stock awards.
	See Note 1.

Total comprehensive earnings were $3,969 million for the quarter ended March 31, 2006.

See notes to condensed consolidated financial statements.

-6-

Altria Group, Inc. and Subsidiaries
Condensed Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows
(in millions of dollars)
(Unaudited)

	For the Three Months Ended
	March 31,
	2007			2006
CASH PROVIDED BY (USED IN) OPERATING ACTIVITIES
Earnings from continuing operations - Consumer products	$	2,028		$	2,535
- Financial services		97			62
Earnings from discontinued operations, net of income taxes and minority interest		625			880
Net earnings		2,750			3,477
Impact of earnings from discontinued operations, net of income taxes and minority interest		(625	)		(880	)
Adjustments to reconcile net earnings to operating cash flows:
Consumer products
Depreciation and amortization		226			230
Deferred income tax provision		970			1,066
Equity earnings and minority interest, net		(40	)		(57	)
Escrow bond for the Price domestic tobacco case					(210	)
Asset impairment and exit costs, net of cash paid		90			(28	)
Income tax reserve reversal					(1,006	)
Cash effects of changes, net of the effects from acquired and divested companies:
Receivables, net		(31	)		323
Inventories		201			(647	)
Accounts payable		(185	)		(110	)
Income taxes		(836	)		(920	)
Accrued liabilities and other current assets		(1,023	)		(195	)
Domestic tobacco accrued settlement charges		(2,357	)		(2,378	)
Pension plan contributions		(53	)		(292	)
Pension provisions and postretirement, net		92			103
Other		185			281
Financial services
Deferred income tax benefit		(234	)		(272	)
Other		205			344
Net cash used in operating activities, continuing operations		(665	)		(1,171	)
Net cash provided by operating activities, discontinued operations		161			480
Net cash used in operating activities		(504	)		(691	)

See notes to condensed consolidated financial statements.

Continued

-7-

Altria Group, Inc. and Subsidiaries
Condensed Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows (Continued)
(in millions of dollars)
(Unaudited)

	For the Three Months Ended
	March 31,
	2007			2006
CASH PROVIDED BY (USED IN) INVESTING ACTIVITIES
Consumer products
Capital expenditures	$	(296	)	$	(222	)
Purchases of businesses, net of acquired cash		(382	)
Proceeds from sales of businesses					10
Other		68			41
Financial services
Investments in finance assets		(1	)		(2	)
Proceeds from finance assets		199			170
Net cash used in investing activities, continuing operations		(412	)		(3	)
Net cash provided by (used in) investing activities, discontinued operations		26			(93	)
Net cash used in investing activities		(386	)		(96	)
CASH PROVIDED BY (USED IN) FINANCING ACTIVITIES
Consumer products
Net issuance (repayment) of short-term borrowings		14			(499	)
Long-term borrowings by PMI		530
Long-term debt repaid		(500	)		(400	)
Dividends paid on Altria Group, Inc. common stock		(1,805	)		(1,667	)
Issuance of Altria Group, Inc. common stock		245			84
Kraft Foods Inc. dividends paid to Altria Group, Inc.		364			335
Other		(377	)		(403	)
Net cash used in financing activities, continuing operations		(1,529	)		(2,550	)
Net cash used in financing activities, discontinued operations		(176	)		(443	)
Net cash used in financing activities		(1,705	)		(2,993	)
Effect of exchange rate changes on cash and cash equivalents:
Continuing operations		14			6
Discontinued operations		1			7
Cash and cash equivalents, continuing operations:
Decrease		(2,592	)		(3,718	)
Balance at beginning of period		4,781			5,942
Balance at end of period	$	2,189		$	2,224

See notes to condensed consolidated financial statements.

-8-

Altria Group, Inc. and Subsidiaries
Notes to Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements
(Unaudited)

Note 1. Basis of Presentation and Kraft Spin-Off

Basis of Presentation

The interim condensed consolidated financial statements of Altria Group, Inc. and subsidiaries (“Altria Group, Inc.”) are unaudited. It is the opinion of Altria Group, Inc.’s management that all adjustments necessary for a fair statement of the interim results presented have been reflected therein. All such adjustments were of a normal recurring nature. Net revenues and net earnings for any interim period are not necessarily indicative of results that may be expected for the entire year. Throughout this Form 10-Q, the term “Altria Group, Inc.” refers to the consolidated financial position, results of operations and cash flows of the Altria family of companies and the term “ALG” refers solely to the parent company.

These statements should be read in conjunction with the consolidated financial statements and related notes, which appear in Altria Group, Inc.’s Annual Report to Stockholders and which are incorporated by reference into Altria Group, Inc.’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2006 (the “2006 Form 10-K”).

Balance sheet accounts are segregated by two broad types of businesses. Consumer products assets and liabilities are classified as either current or non-current, whereas financial services assets and liabilities are unclassified, in accordance with respective industry practices.

On March 30, 2007, Altria Group, Inc. distributed all of its remaining interest in Kraft Foods Inc. (“Kraft”) on a pro-rata basis to Altria Group, Inc. stockholders in a tax-free distribution. For further discussion, please refer to the Kraft Spin-Off discussion below. Altria Group, Inc. has reflected the results of Kraft prior to the distribution date as discontinued operations on the condensed consolidated statements of earnings and the condensed consolidated statements of cash flows for all periods presented. The assets and liabilities related to Kraft were reclassified and reflected as discontinued operations on the condensed consolidated balance sheet at December 31, 2006.

Certain prior year amounts have been reclassified to conform with the current year’s presentation, due primarily to the classification of Kraft as discontinued operations.

Kraft Spin-Off

On March 30, 2007 (the “Distribution Date”), Altria Group, Inc. spun-off all of its remaining interest (88.9%) in Kraft on a pro-rata basis to Altria Group, Inc. stockholders of record as of the close of business on March 16, 2007 (the “Record Date”) in a tax-free distribution. Based on the number of shares of Altria Group, Inc. outstanding at the Record Date, the distribution ratio was 0.692024 of a share of Kraft for every share of Altria Group, Inc. common stock outstanding. Altria Group, Inc. stockholders received cash in lieu of fractional shares of Kraft. Following the distribution, only Class A common shares of Kraft are outstanding, and Altria Group, Inc. does not own any shares of Kraft. Altria Group, Inc. has announced its intention to adjust its current dividend so that its stockholders who retain their Altria Group, Inc. and Kraft shares will receive, in the aggregate, the same dividend rate as before the distribution. As in the past, all decisions regarding future dividend increases will be made independently by the Altria Group, Inc. Board of Directors and the Kraft Board of Directors, for their respective companies.

Holders of Altria Group, Inc. stock options were treated similarly to public stockholders and accordingly, had their stock awards split into two instruments. Holders of Altria Group, Inc. stock options received the following

-9-

Altria Group, Inc. and Subsidiaries
Notes to Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements
(Unaudited)

stock options, which, immediately after the spin-off, had an aggregate intrinsic value equal to the intrinsic value of the pre-spin Altria Group, Inc. options:

• a new Kraft option to acquire the number of shares of Kraft Class A common stock equal to the product of (a) the number of Altria Group, Inc. options held by such person on the Distribution Date and (b) the distribution ratio of 0.692024 mentioned above; and

• an adjusted Altria Group, Inc. option for the same number of shares of Altria Group, Inc. common stock with a reduced exercise price.

The new Kraft option has an exercise price equal to the Kraft market price at the time of the distribution ($31.66) multiplied by the Option Conversion Ratio, which represents the exercise price of the original Altria Group, Inc. option divided by the Altria Group, Inc. market price immediately before the distribution ($87.81). The reduced exercise price of the adjusted Altria Group, Inc. option is determined by multiplying the Altria Group, Inc. market price immediately following the distribution ($65.90) by the Option Conversion Ratio.

Holders of Altria Group, Inc. restricted stock or stock rights awarded prior to January 31, 2007, retained their existing award and received restricted stock or stock rights of Kraft Class A common stock. The amount of Kraft restricted stock or stock rights awarded to such holders was calculated using the same formula set forth above with respect to new Kraft options. All of the restricted stock and stock rights will vest at the completion of the original restriction period (typically, three years from the date of the original grant). Recipients of Altria Group, Inc. stock rights awarded on January 31, 2007, did not receive restricted stock or stock rights of Kraft. Rather, they received additional stock rights of Altria Group, Inc. to preserve the intrinsic value of the original award.

To the extent that employees of the remaining Altria Group, Inc. received Kraft stock options, Altria Group, Inc. reimbursed Kraft in cash for the Black-Scholes fair value of the stock options received. To the extent that Kraft employees held Altria Group, Inc. stock options, Kraft reimbursed Altria Group, Inc. in cash for the Black-Scholes fair value of the stock options. To the extent that holders of Altria Group, Inc. stock rights received Kraft stock rights, Altria Group, Inc. paid to Kraft the fair value of the Kraft stock rights less the value of projected forfeitures. Based upon the number of Altria Group, Inc. stock awards outstanding at the Distribution Date, the net amount of these reimbursements resulted in a payment of $179 million from Kraft to Altria Group, Inc. in April 2007. The reimbursement from Kraft is reflected as an increase to the additional paid-in capital of Altria Group, Inc. on the March 31, 2007 condensed consolidated balance sheet.

Kraft was previously included in the Altria Group, Inc. consolidated federal income tax return, and federal income tax contingencies were recorded as liabilities on the balance sheet of ALG. As part of the intercompany account settlement discussed below, ALG reimbursed Kraft in cash for these liabilities, which as of March 30, 2007, were approximately $305 million, plus pre-tax interest of $63 million. ALG also reimbursed Kraft in cash for the federal income tax consequences of the adoption of Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) Interpretation No. 48, “Accounting for Uncertainty in Income Taxes — an interpretation of FASB Statement No. 109” (“FIN 48”) (approximately $70 million plus pre-tax interest of $14 million). See Note 12. Income Taxes for a discussion of the FIN 48 adoption and the Tax Sharing Agreement between Altria Group, Inc. and Kraft.

A subsidiary of ALG previously provided Kraft with certain services at cost plus a 5% management fee. After the Distribution Date, Kraft undertook these activities, and any remaining limited services provided to Kraft will cease in 2007. All intercompany accounts were settled in cash within 30 days of the Distribution Date. The settlement of the intercompany accounts (including the amounts discussed above related to stock awards and tax contingencies) resulted in a net payment from Kraft to ALG of $85 million in April 2007.

-10-

Altria Group, Inc. and Subsidiaries
Notes to Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements
(Unaudited)

The distribution resulted in a net decrease to Altria Group, Inc.’s stockholders’ equity of $27.4 billion on the Distribution Date.

Note 2. Asset Impairment and Exit Costs:

Pre-tax asset impairment and exit costs consisted of the following:

		For the Three Months Ended
		March 31,
		2007		2006
		(in millions)
Separation program	International tobacco	$	62	$	2
Separation program	General corporate		17
Kraft spin-off fees	General corporate		44
Asset impairment and exit costs		$	123	$	2

Pre-tax charges at Philip Morris International, Inc. (“PMI”) primarily related to severance costs for the streamlining of various administrative functions and operations. Cash payments related to exit costs at PMI were $23 million for the three months ended March 31, 2007. Remaining future cash payments for exit costs incurred in the first quarter of 2007 and previous periods are expected to be approximately $140 million.

General corporate pre-tax charges primarily related to investment banking fees associated with the Kraft spin-off and charges related to the streamlining of various corporate functions.

Note 3. Benefit Plans:

Altria Group, Inc. sponsors noncontributory defined benefit pension plans covering substantially all U.S. employees. Pension coverage for employees of ALG’s non-U.S. subsidiaries is provided, to the extent deemed appropriate, through separate plans, many of which are governed by local statutory requirements. In addition, ALG and its U.S. and Canadian subsidiaries provide health care and other benefits to substantially all retired employees. Health care benefits for retirees outside the United States and Canada are generally covered through local government plans.

-11-

Altria Group, Inc. and Subsidiaries
Notes to Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements
(Unaudited)

Pension Plans

Components of Net Periodic Benefit Cost

Net periodic pension cost consisted of the following:

	U.S. Plans						Non-U.S. Plans
	For the Three Months Ended						For the Three Months Ended
	March 31,						March 31,
	2007			2006			2007			2006
	(in millions)
Service cost	$	28		$	29		$	35		$	31
Interest cost		78			71			33			28
Expected return on plan assets		(103	)		(100	)		(52	)		(40	)
Amortization:
Net loss		30			37			7			6
Prior service cost		3			3			1			1
Other		2
Net periodic pension cost	$	38		$	40		$	24		$	26

Employer Contributions

Altria Group, Inc. presently makes, and plans to make, contributions, to the extent that they are tax deductible and do not generate an excise tax liability, in order to maintain plan assets in excess of the accumulated benefit obligation of its funded U.S. and non-U.S. plans. Employer contributions of $12 million and $41 million were made to U.S. plans and non-U.S. plans, respectively, during the three months ended March 31, 2007. Currently, Altria Group, Inc. anticipates making additional contributions during the remainder of 2007 of approximately $10 million to its U.S. plans and approximately $74 million to its non-U.S. plans, based on current tax law. However, these estimates are subject to change as a result of changes in tax and other benefit laws, as well as asset performance significantly above or below the assumed long-term rate of return on pension assets, or significant changes in interest rates.

-12-

Altria Group, Inc. and Subsidiaries
Notes to Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements
(Unaudited)

Postretirement Benefit Plans

Net postretirement health care costs consisted of the following:

	For the Three Months Ended
	March 31,
	2007			2006
	(in millions)
Service cost	$	12		$	14
Interest cost		32			31
Amortization:
Net loss		8			9
Prior service cost		(2	)		(1	)
Other		1
Net postretirement health care costs	$	51		$	53

Note 4. Goodwill and Other Intangible Assets, net:

Goodwill and other intangible assets, net, by segment were as follows (in millions):

	Goodwill				Other Intangible Assets, net
	March 31,		December 31,		March 31,		December 31,
	2007		2006		2007		2006
Domestic tobacco	$	-	$	-	$	281	$	281
International tobacco		6,597		6,197		1,622		1,627
Total	$	6,597	$	6,197	$	1,903	$	1,908

Intangible assets were as follows (in millions):

	March 31, 2007				December 31, 2006
	Gross				Gross
	Carrying		Accumulated		Carrying		Accumulated
	Amount		Amortization		Amount		Amortization
Non-amortizable intangible assets	$	1,565			$	1,566
Amortizable intangible assets		390	$	52		388	$	46
Total intangible assets	$	1,955	$	52	$	1,954	$	46

Non-amortizable intangible assets substantially consist of brand names from PMI’s 2005 acquisition of a business in Indonesia. Amortizable intangible assets consist primarily of certain trademark licenses and non-compete agreements. Pre-tax amortization expense for intangible assets for the three months ended March 31, 2007 and 2006, was $6 million and $5 million, respectively. Amortization expense for each of the next five years is estimated to be $25 million or less, assuming no additional transactions occur that require the amortization of intangible assets.

-13-

Altria Group, Inc. and Subsidiaries
Notes to Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements
(Unaudited)

Goodwill is due primarily to PMI’s acquisitions in Indonesia, Greece, Serbia, Colombia and Pakistan. The movement in goodwill and gross carrying amount of intangible assets from December 31, 2006, is as follows (in millions):

			Intangible
	Goodwill		Assets
Balance at December 31, 2006	$	6,197	$	1,954
Changes due to:
Currency		6		1
Acquisitions		393
Other		1
Balance at March 31, 2007	$	6,597	$	1,955

The increase in goodwill from acquisitions is related to the preliminary allocation of the purchase price for PMI’s acquisition in Pakistan. The allocation is based upon preliminary estimates and assumptions and is subject to revision when appraisals are finalized, which is expected to occur by the end of 2007.

During the first quarter of 2007, Altria Group, Inc. completed its annual review of goodwill and intangible assets, and no charges resulted from this review.

Note 5. Financial Instruments:

During the three months ended March 31, 2007 and 2006, ineffectiveness related to fair value hedges and cash flow hedges was not material. Altria Group, Inc. is hedging forecasted transactions for periods not exceeding the next twenty months. The amounts reported in accumulated other comprehensive earnings (losses) that are expected to be reclassified to the consolidated statement of earnings within the next twelve months are not expected to be material.

Within currency translation adjustments at March 31, 2007 and 2006, Altria Group, Inc. recorded gains of $16 million, net of income taxes, and losses of $3 million, net of income taxes, respectively, which represented effective hedges of net investments.

Hedging activity affected accumulated other comprehensive earnings (losses), net of income taxes, as follows:

	For the Three Months Ended
	March 31,
	2007			2006
	(in millions)
Gain at beginning of period	$	13		$	24
Derivative gains transferred to earnings		(24	)		(6	)
Change in fair value		14			18
Kraft spin-off		2
Gain as of March 31	$	5		$	36

-14-

Altria Group, Inc. and Subsidiaries
Notes to Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements
(Unaudited)

Note 6. Acquisitions:

During the first quarter of 2007, PMI acquired an additional 50.2% stake in a Pakistan cigarette manufacturer, Lakson Tobacco Company Limited (“Lakson Tobacco”), and completed a mandatory tender offer for the remaining shares, which increased PMI’s total ownership interest in Lakson Tobacco from 40% to approximately 98%, for $388 million.

Note 7. Divestitures:

Discontinued Operations:

As further discussed in Note 1. Basis of Presentation and Kraft Spin-off, on March 30, 2007, Altria Group, Inc. completed the spin-off of all of its remaining interest (88.9%) in Kraft on a pro rata basis to Altria Group, Inc. stockholders in a tax-free distribution. Altria Group, Inc. stockholders received 0.692024 of a share of Kraft for every share of Altria Group, Inc. common stock outstanding. Altria Group, Inc. stockholders received cash in lieu of fractional shares of Kraft. The distribution was accounted for as a dividend and as such resulted in a net decrease to Altria Group, Inc.’s stockholders’ equity of $27.4 billion on March 30, 2007.

Altria Group, Inc. has reflected the results of Kraft prior to the distribution date as discontinued operations on the condensed consolidated statements of earnings and the condensed consolidated statements of cash flows for all periods presented. The assets and liabilities related to Kraft were reclassified and reflected as discontinued operations on the condensed consolidated balance sheet at December 31, 2006.

Summarized financial information for discontinued operations for the three months ended March 31, 2007 and 2006 were as follows (in millions):

	For the Three Months Ended
	March 31,
	2007			2006
Net revenues	$	8,586		$	8,123
Earnings before income taxes and minority interest	$	1,059		$	922
(Provision) benefit for income taxes		(356	)		85
Minority interest in earnings from discontinued operations, net		(78	)		(127	)
Earnings from discontinued operations, net of income taxes and minority interest	$	625		$	880

-15-

Altria Group, Inc. and Subsidiaries
Notes to Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements
(Unaudited)

Summarized assets and liabilities of discontinued operations as of December 31, 2006 were as follows (in millions):

	December 31,
	2006
Assets:
Cash and cash equivalents	$	239
Receivables, net		3,262
Inventories		3,506
Other current assets		640
Current assets of discontinued operations		7,647
Property, plant and equipment, net		9,693
Goodwill		27,038
Other intangible assets, net		10,177
Prepaid pension assets		1,168
Other assets		729
Long-term assets of discontinued operations		48,805
Liabilities:
Short-term borrowings		1,715
Current portion of long-term debt		1,418
Accounts payable		2,602
Accrued liabilities		3,980
Income taxes		151
Current liabilities of discontinued operations		9,866
Long-term debt		7,081
Deferred income taxes		3,930
Accrued pension costs		1,022
Accrued postretirement health care costs		3,014
Minority interest		3,109
Other liabilities		1,473
Long-term liabilities of discontinued operations		19,629
Net Assets	$	26,957

Note 8. Stock Plans:

In connection with the Kraft spin-off, Altria Group, Inc. employee stock options were modified through the issuance of Kraft employee stock options and the adjustment of the stock option exercise prices for the Altria Group, Inc. awards. For each employee stock option outstanding the aggregate intrinsic value of the option immediately after the spin-off was not greater than the aggregate intrinsic value of the option immediately before the spin-off. Due to the fact that the Black-Scholes fair values of the awards immediately before and immediately after the spin-off were equivalent, as measured in accordance with the provisions of Statement of Financial Accounting Standards (“SFAS”) No. 123(R), no incremental compensation expense was recorded as a result of the modification of the Altria Group, Inc. awards.

In January 2007, Altria Group, Inc. issued 1.7 million rights to receive shares of stock to eligible U.S.-based and non-U.S. employees. Restrictions on these rights lapse in the first quarter of 2010. The market value per right

-16-

Altria Group, Inc. and Subsidiaries
Notes to Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements
(Unaudited)

was $87.36 on the date of grant. Recipients of these Altria Group, Inc. stock rights did not receive restricted stock or stock rights of Kraft upon the Kraft spin-off. Rather, they received approximately 0.6 million additional stock rights of Altria Group, Inc. to preserve the intrinsic value of the original award.

In February 2007, 1.2 million shares of restricted stock and 0.8 million rights to receive shares of stock vested. The total fair value of restricted stock and rights vested during the first quarter of 2007 was $175 million. The grant date fair value per share of these awards was $55.42.

Note 9. Earnings Per Share:

Basic and diluted EPS from continuing and discontinued operations were calculated using the following:

	For the Three Months Ended
	March 31,
	2007		2006
	(in millions)
Earnings from continuing operations	$	2,125	$	2,597
Earnings from discontinued operations		625		880
Net earnings	$	2,750	$	3,477
Weighted average shares for basic EPS		2,097		2,082
Plus incremental shares from assumed conversions:
Restricted stock and stock rights		3		3
Stock options		12		16
Weighted average shares for diluted EPS		2,112		2,101

For the three months ended March 31, 2007 and 2006, the number of stock options excluded from the calculation of weighted average shares for diluted EPS because their effects were antidilutive was immaterial.

Note 10. Segment Reporting:

The products of ALG’s subsidiaries include cigarettes and other tobacco products. Another subsidiary of ALG, Philip Morris Capital Corporation (“PMCC”), maintains a portfolio of leveraged and direct finance leases. The products and services of these subsidiaries constitute Altria Group, Inc.’s reportable segments of domestic tobacco, international tobacco and financial services.

Altria Group, Inc.’s management reviews operating companies income to evaluate segment performance and allocate resources. Operating companies income for the segments excludes general corporate expenses and amortization of intangibles. Interest and other debt expense, net (consumer products), and provision for income taxes are centrally managed at the ALG level and, accordingly, such items are not presented by segment since they are excluded from the measure of segment profitability reviewed by Altria Group, Inc.’s management.

-17-

Altria Group, Inc. and Subsidiaries
Notes to Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements
(Unaudited)

Segment data were as follows:

	For the Three Months Ended
	March 31,
	2007			2006
	(in millions)
Net revenues:
Domestic tobacco	$	4,245		$	4,323
International tobacco		13,268			11,801
Financial services		43			108
Net revenues	$	17,556		$	16,232
Earnings from continuing operations before income taxes, and equity earnings and minority interest, net:
Operating companies income:
Domestic tobacco	$	1,130		$	1,116
International tobacco		2,154			1,967
Financial services		160			96
Amortization of intangibles		(6	)		(5	)
General corporate expenses		(188	)		(113	)
Operating income		3,250			3,061
Interest and other debt expense, net		(114	)		(147	)
Earnings from continuing operations before income taxes, and equity earnings and minority interest, net	$	3,136		$	2,914

Items affecting the comparability of results from continuing operations were as follows:

• Recoveries from Airline Industry Exposure – During the first quarter of 2007, PMCC recorded a pre-tax gain of $129 million on the sale of its ownership interest in certain leveraged lease investments in aircraft, which represented a partial cash recovery of amounts that had been previously written down.

• Italian Antitrust Charge – During the first quarter of 2006, PMI recorded a $61 million charge related to an Italian antitrust action.

• Asset Impairment and Exit Costs – See Note 2. Asset Impairment and Exit Costs, for a breakdown of asset impairment and exit costs by segment.

Note 11. Contingencies:

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

-18-

Altria Group, Inc. and Subsidiaries
Notes to Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements
(Unaudited)

Overview of Tobacco-Related Litigation

Types and Number of Cases

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

The table below lists the number of certain tobacco-related cases pending in the United States against PM USA and, in some instances, ALG or PMI, as of May 1, 2007, May 1, 2006 and May 2, 2005, and a page-reference to further discussions of each type of case.

	Number of Cases	Number of Cases	Number of Cases
	Pending as of	Pending as of	Pending as of	Page
Type of Case	May 1, 2007	May 1, 2006	May 2, 2005	References
Individual Smoking and Health Cases (1)	183	205	235	29
Smoking and Health Class Actions and Aggregated Claims Litigation (2)	11	10	9	29-30
Health Care Cost Recovery Actions	3	4	7	30-35
Lights/Ultra Lights Class Actions	19	25	22	35-38
Tobacco Price Cases	2	2	2	38
Cigarette Contraband Cases	0	1	2	38-39
Asbestos Contribution Cases	0	1	1	-

(1) Does not include 2,623 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, which was settled in 1997. The terms of the court-approved settlement in that case allow class members to file individual lawsuits seeking compensatory damages, but prohibit them from seeking punitive damages. Also, does not include nine individual smoking and health cases brought against certain retailers that are indemnitees of PM USA.

-19-

Altria Group, Inc. and Subsidiaries
Notes to Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements
(Unaudited)

(2) Includes as one case the aggregated claims of 928 individuals (of which 575 individuals have claims against PM USA) that are proposed to be tried in a single proceeding in West Virginia. The West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals has ruled that the United States Constitution does not preclude a trial in two phases in this case. Issues related to defendants’ conduct, plaintiffs’ entitlement to punitive damages and a punitive damages multiplier, if any, would be determined in the first phase. The second phase would consist of individual trials to determine liability, if any, and compensatory damages.

There are also a number of other tobacco-related actions pending outside the United States against PMI and its affiliates and subsidiaries, including an estimated 131 individual smoking and health cases as of May 1, 2007 (Argentina (56), Australia (2), Brazil (53), Chile (8), Colombia (1), Costa Rica (1), Greece (1), Italy (5), the Philippines (1), Poland (2) and Scotland (1), compared with approximately 134 such cases on May 1, 2006, and approximately 115 such cases on May 2, 2005. In addition, in Italy, 16 cases are pending in the Italian equivalent of small claims court where damages are limited to €2,000 per case, and three cases are pending in Finland and one in Israel against defendants that are indemnitees of a subsidiary of PMI.

In addition, as of May 1, 2007, there were two smoking and health putative class actions pending outside the United States against PMI or its affiliates in Brazil (1) and Israel (1) compared with three such cases on May 1, 2006, and one such case on May 2, 2005. Three health care cost recovery actions are pending in Israel (1), Canada (1) and France (1), against PMI or its affiliates, and two Lights/Ultra Lights class actions are pending in Israel. PM USA is also a named defendant in the smoking and health putative class action in Israel, a “Lights” class action in Israel and health care cost recovery actions in Israel and Canada.

Pending and Upcoming Trials

The jury returned its verdict (described below) in an individual smoking and health case in California (Whiteley) on May 2, 2007. As of May 1, 2007, an additional 6 individual smoking and health cases against PM USA are scheduled for trial in 2007. Cases against other tobacco companies are also scheduled for trial through the end of 2007. Trial dates are subject to change.

Recent Trial Results

Since January 1999, verdicts have been returned in 45 smoking and health, Lights/Ultra Lights and health care cost recovery cases in which PM USA was a defendant. Verdicts in favor of PM USA and other defendants were returned in 28 of the 45 cases. These 28 cases were tried in California (4), Florida (9), Mississippi (1), Missouri (2), New Hampshire (1), New Jersey (1), New York (3), Ohio (2), Pennsylvania (1), Rhode Island (1), Tennessee (2), and West Virginia (1). Plaintiffs’ appeals or post-trial motions challenging the verdicts are pending in California, the District of Columbia and Florida. A motion for a new trial has been granted in one of the cases in Florida. In addition, in December 2002, a court dismissed an individual smoking and health case in California at the end of trial.

In July 2005, a jury in Tennessee returned a verdict in favor of PM USA in a case in which plaintiffs had challenged PM USA’s retail promotional and merchandising programs under the Robinson-Patman Act.

Of the 17 cases in which verdicts were returned in favor of plaintiffs, eight have reached final resolution. A verdict against defendants in a health care cost recovery case has been reversed and all claims were dismissed with prejudice. In addition, a verdict against defendants in a purported Lights class action in Illinois has been reversed and the case has been dismissed with prejudice. After exhausting all appeals, PM USA has paid six judgments totaling $71,392,295, and interest totaling $33,799,281.

-20-

Altria Group, Inc. and Subsidiaries
Notes to Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements
(Unaudited)

The chart below lists the verdicts and post-trial developments in 10 cases (including the Illinois Lights class action) that have gone to trial since January 1999 in which verdicts were returned in favor of plaintiffs.

	Location of
	Court/Name
	of
Date	Plaintiff	Type of Case	Verdict	Post-Trial Developments
August 2006	District of Columbia/ United States of America	Health Care Cost Recovery	Finding that defendants, including ALG and PM USA, violated the civil provisions of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO). No monetary damages assessed, but court made specific findings and issued injunctions. See Federal Government’s Lawsuit, below.	Defendants filed notices of appeal to the United States Court of Appeals in September and the Department of Justice filed its notice of appeal in October. In October 2006, a three-judge panel of the Court of Appeals stayed implementation of the trial court’s remedies order pending its review of the decision. In March 2007, the trial court denied in part and granted in part defendants’ post-trial motion for clarification of portions of the court’s remedial order. See Federal Government’s Lawsuit, below.
March 2005	New York/ Rose	Individual Smoking and Health	$3.42 million in compensatory damages against two defendants, including PM USA, and $17.1 million in punitive damages against PM USA.	PM USA’s appeal is pending.

-21-

Altria Group, Inc. and Subsidiaries
Notes to Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements
(Unaudited)

	Location of
	Court/Name
	of
Date	Plaintiff	Type of Case	Verdict	Post-Trial Developments
May 2004	Louisiana/ Scott	Smoking and Health Class Action	Approximately $590 million against all defendants including PM USA, jointly and severally, to fund a 10-year smoking cessation program.	In June 2004, the state trial court entered judgment in the amount of the verdict of $590 million, plus prejudgment interest accruing from the date the suit commenced. As of February 15, 2007, the amount of prejudgment interest was approximately $444 million. PM USA’s share of the verdict and prejudgment interest has not been allocated. Defendants, including PM USA, appealed. In February 2007, the Louisiana Court of Appeal upheld the class certification and finding of liability, but reduced the judgment by $312 million and vacated the award of prejudgment interest. In March 2007, the Louisiana Court of Appeal rejected defendants’ motion for rehearing and clarification. Plaintiffs and defendants have filed petitions for writ of certiorari with the Louisiana Supreme Court. See Scott Class Action below.

-22-

Altria Group, Inc. and Subsidiaries
Notes to Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements
(Unaudited)

	Location of
	Court/Name
	of
Date	Plaintiff	Type of Case	Verdict	Post-Trial Developments
March 2003	Illinois/ Price	Lights/Ultra Lights Class Action	$7.1005 billion in compensatory damages and $3 billion in punitive damages against PM USA.	In December 2005, the Illinois Supreme Court reversed the trial court’s judgment in favor of the plaintiffs and remanded the case to the trial court with instructions to dismiss the case against PM USA. In May 2006, the Illinois Supreme Court rejected the plaintiffs’ motion for rehearing. In November 2006, the United States Supreme Court denied plaintiffs’ petition for writ of certiorari and in December 2006, the trial court dismissed the case with prejudice. Plaintiffs have filed a motion to vacate the final judgment, which PM USA has opposed. See the discussion of the Price case under the heading “Lights/Ultra Lights Cases.”
October 2002	California/ Bullock	Individual Smoking and Health	$850,000 in compensatory damages and $28 billion in punitive damages against PM USA.	In December 2002, the trial court reduced the punitive damages award to $28 million. In April 2006, the California Court of Appeal affirmed the $28 million punitive damage award. See discussion (1) below.
June 2002	Florida/ Lukacs	Individual Smoking and Health	$37.5 million in compensatory damages against all defendants, including PM USA.	In March 2003, the trial court reduced the damages award to $24.86 million. PM USA’s share of the damages award is approximately $6 million. The court has not yet entered the judgment on the jury verdict. In January 2007, defendants petitioned the trial court to set aside the jury’s verdict and dismiss plaintiffs’ punitive damages claim. If a judgment is entered in this case, PM USA intends to appeal.

-23-

Altria Group, Inc. and Subsidiaries
Notes to Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements
(Unaudited)

	Location of
	Court/Name
	of
Date	Plaintiff	Type of Case	Verdict	Post-Trial Developments
March 2002	Oregon/ Schwarz	Individual Smoking and Health	$168,500 in compensatory damages and $150 million in punitive damages against PM USA.	In May 2002, the trial court reduced the punitive damages award to $100 million. In May 2006, the Oregon Court of Appeals affirmed the compensatory damages verdict, reversed the award of punitive damages and remanded the case to the trial court for a second trial to determine the amount of punitive damages, if any. In June 2006, plaintiff petitioned the Oregon Supreme Court to review the portion of the Court of Appeals’ decision reversing and remanding the case for a new trial on punitive damages. In October 2006, the Oregon Supreme Court announced that it would hold this petition in abeyance until the United States Supreme Court decided the Williams case discussed below. In February 2007, the United States Supreme Court vacated the punitive damages judgment in Williams and remanded the case to the Oregon Supreme Court for proceedings consistent with its decision. The parties have submitted their briefs to the Oregon Supreme Court setting forth their respective views on how the Williams decision impacts the plaintiff’s pending petition for review.

-24-

Altria Group, Inc. and Subsidiaries
Notes to Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements
(Unaudited)

	Location of
	Court/Name
	of
Date	Plaintiff	Type of Case	Verdict	Post-Trial Developments
July 2000	Florida/ Engle	Smoking and Health Class Action	$145 billion in punitive damages against all defendants, including $74 billion against PM USA.	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, that certain Phase I trial court findings be allowed to stand as against the defendants in individual actions that individual former class members may bring within one year of the issuance of the mandate, compensatory damage awards totaling approximately $6.9 million to two individual class members be reinstated and that a third former class member’s claim was barred by the statute of limitations. In December 2006, the Florida Supreme Court denied all motions by the parties for rehearing but issued a revised opinion. In January 2007, the Florida Supreme Court issued the mandate from its revised December opinion and defendants filed a motion with the Florida Third District Court of Appeal requesting the court’s review of legal errors previously raised but not ruled upon. This motion was denied in February 2007. In March 2007, the United States Supreme Court granted defendants’ motion for an extension of time in which to file a petition for writ of certiorari, which is now due on May 21, 2007. In addition, defendants’ motion for a partial stay of the mandate pending the completion of appellate review is pending before the District Court of Appeal. See “Engle Class Action” below.

-25-

Altria Group, Inc. and Subsidiaries
Notes to Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements
(Unaudited)

	Location of
	Court/Name
	of
Date	Plaintiff	Type of Case	Verdict	Post-Trial Developments
March 2000	California/ Whiteley	Individual Smoking and Health	$1.72 million in compensatory damages against PM USA and another defendant, and $10 million in punitive damages against each of PM USA and the other defendant.	In April 2004, the California First District Court of Appeal entered judgment in favor of defendants on plaintiff’s negligent design claims, and reversed and remanded for a new trial on plaintiff’s fraud-related claims. In May 2006, plaintiff filed an amended consolidated complaint. In September 2006, the trial court granted plaintiff’s motion for a preferential trial date and trial began on January 22, 2007. On May 2, 2007, the jury awarded plaintiffs approximately $2.5 million in compensatory damages against PM USA and the other defendant in the case. The jury also found that plaintiffs are entitled to punitive damages against the other defendant, but not PM USA, in an amount to be determined in a later phase of the trial. PM USA intends to seek review of the compensatory damage verdict.
March 1999	Oregon/ Williams	Individual Smoking and Health	$800,000 in compensatory damages, $21,500 in medical expenses and $79.5 million in punitive damages against PM USA.	See discussion (2) below.

(1)

Bullock: In August 2006, the California Supreme Court denied plaintiffs’ petition to overturn the trial court’s reduction of the punitive damage award and granted PM USA’s petition for review challenging the punitive damage award. The court granted review of the case on a “grant and hold” basis under which further action by the court is deferred pending the United States Supreme Court’s decision on punitive damages in the Williams case described below. In February 2007, the United States Supreme Court vacated the punitive damages judgment in Williams and remanded the case to the Oregon Supreme Court for proceedings consistent with its decision. Parties to the appeal in Bullock have requested that the court establish a briefing schedule on the merits of the pending appeal.

(2)

Williams: The trial court reduced the punitive damages award to $32 million, and PM USA and plaintiff appealed. In June 2002, the Oregon Court of Appeals reinstated the $79.5 million punitive damages award. Following the Oregon Supreme Court’s refusal to hear PM USA’s appeal, PM USA recorded a provision of $32 million in connection with this case and petitioned the United States Supreme Court for further review. In October 2003, the United States Supreme Court set aside the Oregon appellate court’s ruling and directed the Oregon court to reconsider the case in light of the 2003 State Farm decision by the United States Supreme Court, which limited punitive damages. In June 2004, the Oregon Court of Appeals reinstated the $79.5 million punitive damages award. In February 2006, the Oregon Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision. Following this decision, PM USA recorded an additional provision of approximately $20 million in interest charges related to this case. The United States Supreme Court granted PM USA’s petition for writ of certiorari in May 2006. In February 2007, the United States Supreme Court vacated the $79.5 million punitive damages award in holding that the United States Constitution prohibits basing punitive damages awards on harm to non-parties. The Court also found that states must assure that appropriate procedures are in place so that juries are provided with proper legal guidance as to the constitutional limitations on awards of punitive damages. Accordingly, the Court remanded the case to the Oregon Supreme Court for further proceedings consistent with this decision.

-26-

Altria Group, Inc. and Subsidiaries
Notes to Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements
(Unaudited)

In addition to the cases discussed above, in October 2003, a three-judge appellate panel in Brazil reversed a lower court’s dismissal of an individual smoking and health case and ordered PMI’s Brazilian affiliate to pay plaintiff approximately $256,000 and other unspecified damages. PMI’s Brazilian affiliate appealed. In December 2004, the three-judge panel’s decision was vacated by an en banc panel of the appellate court, which upheld the trial court’s dismissal of the case. The case is currently on appeal to the Superior Court.

With respect to certain adverse verdicts currently on appeal, excluding amounts relating to the Engle case, as of May 1, 2007, PM USA has posted various forms of security totaling approximately $193 million, the majority of which have been collateralized with cash deposits, to obtain stays of judgments pending appeals. The cash deposits are included in other assets on the consolidated balance sheets.

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 posted a bond in the amount of $100 million and appealed.

In May 2001, the trial court approved a stipulation providing that execution of the punitive damages component of the Engle judgment will remain stayed against PM USA and the other participating defendants through the completion of all judicial review. As a result of the stipulation, PM USA placed $500 million into a separate interest-bearing escrow account that, regardless of the outcome of the appeal, will be paid to the court and the court will determine how to allocate or distribute it consistent with Florida Rules of Civil Procedure. In July 2001, PM USA also placed $1.2 billion into an interest-bearing escrow account, which will be returned to PM USA should it prevail in its appeal of the case. (The $1.2 billion escrow account is included in the December 31, 2006 and December 31, 2005 consolidated balance sheets as other assets. Interest income on the $1.2 billion escrow account is paid to PM USA quarterly and is being recorded as earned, in interest and other debt expense, net, in the consolidated statements of earnings.) In connection with the stipulation, PM USA recorded a $500 million pre-tax charge in its consolidated statement of earnings for the quarter ended March 31, 2001. 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 all 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 all defendants were negligent. The court also reinstated compensatory damage awards totaling approximately $6.9 million to two individual plaintiffs and found that a third plaintiff’s claim was barred by the statute of limitations. It is too early to predict how many members of the decertified class will file individual claims in the prescribed time period.

-27-

Altria Group, Inc. and Subsidiaries
Notes to Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements
(Unaudited)

In August 2006, PM USA sought rehearing from the Florida Supreme Court on parts of its July 2006 opinion, including the ruling (described above) that certain jury findings have res judicata effect in subsequent individual trials timely brought by Engle class members. The rehearing motion also asked, among other things, that legal errors that were raised but not expressly ruled upon in the Third District Court of Appeal or in the Florida Supreme Court now be addressed. Plaintiffs also filed a motion for rehearing in August 2006 seeking clarification of the applicability of the statute of limitations to non-members of the decertified class. In December 2006, the Florida Supreme Court refused to revise its July 2006 ruling, except that it revised the set of Phase I findings entitled to res judicata effect by excluding finding (v) listed above (relating to agreement to misrepresent information), and added the finding that defendants sold or supplied cigarettes that, at the time of sale or supply, did not conform to the representations of fact made by defendants. On January 11, 2007, the Florida Supreme Court issued the mandate from its revised opinion. Defendants then filed a motion with the Florida Third District Court of Appeal requesting that the court address legal errors that were previously raised by defendants but have not yet been addressed either by the Third District or by the Florida Supreme Court. In February 2007, the Third District Court of Appeal denied defendants’ motion. In March 2007, the United States Supreme Court granted defendants’ motion for an extension of time in which to file a petition for writ of certiorari, which is now due on May 21, 2007. In addition, defendants’ motion for partial stay of the mandate pending the completion of appellate review is pending before the District Court of Appeal.

Scott Class Action

In July 2003, following the first phase of the trial in the Scott class action, in which plaintiffs sought creation of a fund to pay for medical monitoring and smoking cessation programs, a Louisiana jury returned a verdict in favor of defendants, including PM USA, in connection with plaintiffs’ medical monitoring claims, but also found that plaintiffs could benefit from smoking cessation assistance. The jury also found that cigarettes as designed are not defective but that the defendants failed to disclose all they knew about smoking and diseases and marketed their products to minors. In May 2004, in the second phase of the trial, the jury awarded plaintiffs approximately $590 million against all defendants jointly and severally, to fund a 10-year smoking cessation program.

In June 2004, the court entered judgment, which awarded plaintiffs the approximately $590 million jury award plus prejudgment interest accruing from the date the suit commenced. As of February 15, 2007, the amount of prejudgment interest was approximately $444 million. PM USA’s share of the jury award and prejudgment interest has not been allocated. Defendants, including PM USA, appealed. Pursuant to a stipulation of the parties, the trial court entered an order setting the amount of the bond at $50 million for all defendants in accordance with an article of the Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure, and a Louisiana statute (the “bond cap law”) fixing the amount of security in civil cases involving a signatory to the MSA (as defined below). Under the terms of the stipulation, plaintiffs reserve the right to contest, at a later date, the sufficiency or amount of the bond on any grounds including the applicability or constitutionality of the bond cap law. In September 2004, defendants collectively posted a bond in the amount of $50 million.

In February 2007, the Louisiana Court of Appeal issued a ruling on defendants’ appeal that, among other things: affirmed class certification but limited the scope of the class; struck certain of the categories of damages that comprised the judgment, reducing the amount of the award by approximately $312 million; vacated the award of prejudgment interest, which totaled approximately $444 million as of February 15, 2007; and ruled that the only class members who are eligible to participate in the smoking cessation program are those who began smoking before, and whose claims accrued by, September 1, 1988. As a result, the Louisiana Court of Appeal remanded for proceedings consistent with its opinion, including further reduction of the amount of the award based on the size of the new class. In March 2007, the Louisiana Court of Appeal rejected defendants’ motion for rehearing and clarification. Plaintiffs and defendants have filed petitions for writ of certiorari with the Louisiana Supreme Court.

-28-

Altria Group, Inc. and Subsidiaries
Notes to Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements
(Unaudited)

Smoking and Health Litigation

Overview

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

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 57 smoking and health class actions involving PM USA in Arkansas (1), the District of Columbia (2), Florida (2), Illinois (2), Iowa (1), Kansas (1), Louisiana (1), Maryland (1), Michigan (1), Minnesota (1), Nevada (29), New Jersey (6), New York (2), Ohio (1), Oklahoma (1), Pennsylvania (1), Puerto Rico (1), South Carolina (1), Texas (1) and Wisconsin (1). A class remains certified in the Scott class action discussed above.

A smoking and health class action is pending in Brazil. Plaintiff is a consumer organization, the Smoker Health Defense Association (ADESF), which filed a claim against Souza Cruz, S.A. and Philip Morris Marketing, S.A. (now Philip Morris Brasil Industria e Commercio Ltda.) at the 19^th Civil Court of São Paulo. Trial and appellate courts found that the action could proceed as a class under the Brazilian Consumer Defense Code. Philip Morris Brasil Industria e Commercio Ltda. appealed this decision and this appeal is pending before the Supreme Federal Court in Brazil. In addition, in February 2004, the trial court awarded the equivalent of approximately R$1,000 (with the current exchange rate, approximately U.S. $450) per smoker per full year of smoking for moral damages plus interest at the rate of 1% per month, as of the date of the ruling. The court order contemplates a second stage of the case in which individuals are to file their claims. Material damages, if any, will be assessed in this second phase. Defendants have appealed this decision to the São Paulo Court of Appeals, and execution of the judgment has been stayed until the appeal is resolved.

There are currently pending two purported class actions against PM USA brought in New York (Caronia, filed in January 2006 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York) and Massachusetts (Donovan, filed in March 2007 in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts) on behalf of each state’s respective residents who: are age 50 or older; have smoked the Marlboro brand for 20 pack-years or more; and have neither been diagnosed with lung cancer nor are under examination by a physician for suspected lung cancer. Plaintiffs in these cases seek to impose liability under various product-based causes of action and the creation of a court-supervised program providing members of the purported class Low Dose CT Scanning in order to identify and diagnose lung cancer. Neither claim seeks punitive damages. Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification is pending in Caronia.

-29-

Altria Group, Inc. and Subsidiaries
Notes to Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements
(Unaudited)

Espinosa Class Action

In December 2006, plaintiffs brought this putative class action against PM USA and other defendants in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois on behalf of individuals from throughout Illinois and/or the United States who purchased cigarettes manufactured by certain defendants from 1996 through the date of any judgment in plaintiffs’ favor. Excluded from the purported class are any individuals who allege personal injury or health care costs. The complaint alleges, among other things, that defendants were negligent and violated the Illinois consumer fraud statute by certain defendants’ steadily and purposefully increasing the nicotine level and absorption of their cigarettes into the human body, including in brands most popular with young people and minorities. In January 2007, PM USA removed the case to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. In March 2007, the United States District Court rejected plaintiffs’ motion to remand the case to the Circuit Court of Cook County. PM USA’s motion to dismiss the action is pending.

Health Care Cost Recovery Litigation

Overview

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

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

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

Although there have been some decisions to the contrary, most judicial decisions have dismissed all or most health care cost recovery claims against cigarette manufacturers. Nine federal circuit courts of appeals and six state appellate courts, relying primarily on grounds that plaintiffs’ claims were too remote, have ordered or affirmed dismissals of health care cost recovery actions. The United States Supreme Court has refused to consider plaintiffs’ appeals from the cases decided by five circuit courts of appeals.

-30-

Altria Group, Inc. and Subsidiaries
Notes to Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements
(Unaudited)

In March 1999, in the first health care cost recovery case to go to trial, an Ohio jury returned a verdict in favor of defendants on all counts. In addition, a $17.8 million verdict against defendants (including $6.8 million against PM USA) was reversed in a health care cost recovery case in New York, and all claims were dismissed with prejudice in February 2005 (Blue Cross/Blue Shield). The health care cost recovery case brought by the City of St. Louis, Missouri and approximately 50 Missouri hospitals, in which PM USA and ALG are defendants, remains pending without a trial date.

Individuals and associations have also sued in purported class actions or as private attorneys general under the Medicare As Secondary Payer statute to recover from defendants Medicare expenditures allegedly incurred for the treatment of smoking-related diseases. Cases brought in New York (Mason), Florida (Glover) and Massachusetts (United Seniors Association) have been dismissed by federal courts, and plaintiffs’ appeal in United Seniors Association is pending.

A number of foreign governmental entities have filed health care cost recovery actions in the United States. Such suits have been brought in the United States by 13 countries, a Canadian province, 11 Brazilian states and 11 Brazilian cities. All of these 36 cases have been dismissed. In February 2007, the Delaware Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of the two remaining cases on appeal (brought by the Republic of Panama and the Brazilian State of São Paulo). In addition to the cases brought in the United States, health care cost recovery actions have also been brought against tobacco industry participants, including PM USA, PMI and certain PMI subsidiaries in Israel (1), the Marshall Islands (1 dismissed), Canada (1), and France (1 dismissed, but plaintiffs have appealed), and other entities have stated that they are considering filing such actions. In September 2005, in the case in Canada, the Canadian Supreme Court ruled that legislation passed in British Columbia permitting the lawsuit is constitutional, and, as a result, the case which had previously been dismissed by the trial court was permitted to proceed. PM USA, PMI and other defendants’ challenge to the British Columbia court’s exercise of jurisdiction was rejected by the Court of Appeals of British Columbia and in April 2007, the Supreme Court of Canada denied review of that decision. Several other provinces in Canada have enacted similar legislation.

Settlements of Health Care Cost Recovery Litigation

In November 1998, PM USA and certain other United States tobacco product manufacturers entered into the Master Settlement Agreement (the “MSA”) with 46 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Guam, the United States Virgin Islands, American Samoa and the Northern Marianas to settle asserted and unasserted health care cost recovery and other claims. PM USA and certain other United States tobacco product manufacturers had previously settled similar claims brought by Mississippi, Florida, Texas and Minnesota (together with the MSA, the “State Settlement Agreements”). The State Settlement Agreements require that the original participating manufacturers make substantial annual payments in the following amounts (excluding future annual payments, if any, under the National Tobacco Grower Settlement Trust discussed below), subject to adjustments for several factors, including inflation, market share and industry volume: 2007, $8.4 billion and thereafter, $9.4 billion each year. In addition, the original participating manufacturers are required to pay settling plaintiffs’ attorneys’ fees, subject to an annual cap of $500 million.

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

Possible Adjustments in MSA Payments for 2003, 2004 and 2005

Pursuant to the provisions of the MSA, domestic tobacco product manufacturers, including PM USA, who are original signatories to the MSA (“OPMs”), are participating in proceedings that may result in downward adjustments to the amounts paid by the OPMs and the other MSA participating manufacturers to the states and

-31-

Altria Group, Inc. and Subsidiaries
Notes to Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements
(Unaudited)

territories that are parties to the MSA for the years 2003, 2004, and 2005. The proceedings are based on the collective loss of market share in each of 2003, 2004 and 2005 by all manufacturers who are subject to the payment obligations and marketing restrictions of the MSA to non-participating manufacturers (“NPMs”) who are not subject to such obligations and restrictions.

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

In March of 2006, an independent economic consulting firm determined that the disadvantages of the MSA were a significant factor contributing to the participating manufacturers’ collective loss of market share for the year 2003. In February 2007, this same firm determined that the disadvantages of the MSA were a significant factor contributing to the participating manufacturers’ collective loss of market share for the year 2004. As of April 2007, PM USA is also participating in another such proceeding before the same economic consulting firm to determine whether the disadvantages of the MSA were a significant factor contributing to the participating manufacturers’ collective loss of market share in 2005. The economic consulting firm is expected to render its final determination on the significant factor issue for 2005 sometime in January 2008. Following the economic consulting firm’s determination with respect to 2003, thirty-eight states filed declaratory judgment actions in state courts seeking a declaration that the state diligently enforced its escrow statute during 2003. The OPMs and other MSA-participating manufacturers have responded to these actions by filing motions to compel arbitration in accordance with the terms of the MSA, including filing motions to compel arbitration in eleven MSA states and territories that have not filed declaratory judgment actions. All but one of the courts ruling on the issue of the appropriate forum has ruled that the question of whether a state diligently enforced its escrow statute during 2003 is subject to arbitration. Additionally, one state has filed a declaratory judgment action in state court with respect to the 2004 diligent enforcement issue.

The issues of what forum will determine the states’ diligent enforcement claims, and the availability and the precise amount of any NPM Adjustment for 2003 and 2004 will not be finally determined until late 2007 or thereafter. The issues of what forum will determine the states’ diligent enforcement claims, and the availability and the precise amount of any NPM Adjustment for 2005 will not be finally determined until late 2008 or thereafter. There is no certainty that the OPMs and other MSA-participating manufacturers will ultimately receive any adjustment as a result of these proceedings. If the OPMs do receive such an adjustment, the adjustment would be allocated among the OPMs pursuant to the MSA’s provisions, and PM USA’s share would likely be applied as a credit against a future MSA payment.

National Grower Settlement Trust

As part of the MSA, the settling defendants committed to work cooperatively with the tobacco-growing states to address concerns about the potential adverse economic impact of the MSA on tobacco growers and quota holders. To that end, in 1999, four of the major domestic tobacco product manufacturers, including PM USA, established the National Tobacco Grower Settlement Trust (“NTGST”), a trust fund to provide aid to tobacco growers and quota holders. The trust was to be funded by these four manufacturers over 12 years with payments, prior to application of various adjustments, scheduled to total $5.15 billion. Provisions of the NTGST

-32-

Altria Group, Inc. and Subsidiaries
Notes to Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements
(Unaudited)

allowed for offsets to the extent that industry-funded payments were made for the benefit of growers or quota holders as part of a legislated end to the federal tobacco quota and price support program.

In October 2004, the Fair and Equitable Tobacco Reform Act of 2004 (“FETRA”) was signed into law. FETRA provides for the elimination of the federal tobacco quota and price support program through an industry-funded buy-out of tobacco growers and quota holders. The cost of the buy-out, which is estimated at approximately $9.5 billion, is being paid over 10 years by manufacturers and importers of each kind of tobacco product. The cost is being allocated based on the relative market shares of manufacturers and importers of each kind of tobacco product. The quota buy-out payments offset already scheduled payments to the NTGST. FETRA also obligated manufacturers and importers of tobacco products to cover any losses (up to $500 million) that the government incurred on the disposition of tobacco pool stock accumulated under the previous tobacco price support program. PM USA has paid $138 million for its share of the tobacco pool stock losses. ALG does not currently anticipate that the quota buy-out will have a material adverse impact on its consolidated results in 2007 and beyond.

Other MSA-Related Litigation

In June 2004, a putative class of California smokers filed a complaint against PM USA and the MSA’s other “Original Participating Manufacturers” (“OPMs”) seeking damages from the OPMs’ for post-MSA price increases and an injunction against their continued compliance with the MSA’s terms. The complaint alleges that the MSA and related legislation protect the OPMs from competition in a manner that violates federal and state antitrust and consumer protection laws. The complaint also names the California Attorney General as a defendant and seeks to enjoin him from enforcing California’s enactment of the MSA’s Model Escrow Statute. In March 2005, the United States District Court for the Northern District of California granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the case. Plaintiffs’ appeal of this decision is pending before the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

Without naming PM USA or any other private party as a defendant, manufacturers that have elected not to sign the MSA (“Non-Participating Manufacturers” or “NPMs”) and/or their distributors or customers have filed several other legal challenges to the MSA and related legislation. New York state officials are defendants in a lawsuit pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York in which cigarette importers allege that the MSA and/or related legislation violates federal antitrust laws and the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution. In a separate proceeding pending in the same court, plaintiffs assert the same theories against not only New York officials but also the Attorneys General for thirty other states. The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has held that the allegations in both actions, if proven, establish a basis for relief on antitrust and Commerce Clause grounds and that the trial courts in New York have personal jurisdiction sufficient to enjoin other states’ officials from enforcing their MSA-related legislation. On remand in those two actions, one trial judge preliminarily enjoined New York from enforcing its “allocable share” amendment to the MSA’s Model Escrow Statute against the plaintiffs, while another trial judge refused to do so after concluding that the plaintiffs were unlikely to prove their allegations. Summary judgment motions are pending in both cases.

In another action, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed a trial court’s dismissal of challenges to MSA-related legislation in Louisiana under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. The case will now proceed to motions for summary judgment and, if necessary, a September 2007 trial. Summary judgment proceedings in another challenge, to Louisiana’s participation in the MSA and its MSA-related legislation, will begin in February 2008. Yet another proceeding has been initiated before an international arbitration tribunal under the provisions of the North American Free Trade Agreement and may proceed to a hearing in mid-2007. Appeals from trial court decisions holding that plaintiffs have failed either to make allegations establishing a claim for relief or to submit evidence supporting those allegations are currently, or will soon be, pending before the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth and Tenth Circuits.

-33-

Altria Group, Inc. and Subsidiaries
Notes to Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements
(Unaudited)

The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit has affirmed the dismissal of two similar challenges, although a motion for reconsideration is pending in one of the cases.

Federal Government’s Lawsuit

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

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

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

In August 2006, the federal trial court entered judgment in favor of the government. The court held that certain defendants, including ALG and PM USA, violated RICO and engaged in 7 of the 8 “sub-schemes” to defraud that the government had alleged. Specifically, the court found that:

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

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

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

-34-

Altria Group, Inc. and Subsidiaries
Notes to Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements
(Unaudited)

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

• defendants falsely denied that they intentionally marketed to youth;

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

• defendants suppressed scientific research.

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

In September 2006, defendants filed notices of appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. In September 2006, the trial court denied defendants’ motion to stay the judgment pending defendants’ appeals, and defendants then filed an emergency motion with the Court of Appeals to stay enforcement of the judgment pending their appeals. In October, the government filed a notice of appeal to the Court of Appeals in which it appeals the denial of certain remedies, including the disgorgement of profits and the cessation remedies it had sought. In October 2006, a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals granted defendants’ motion and stayed the trial court’s judgment pending its review of the decision. Certain defendants, including PM USA and ALG, have filed a motion to clarify the trial court’s August 2006 Final Judgment and Remedial Order. In March 2007, the trial court denied in part and granted in part defendants’ post-trial motion for clarification of portions of the court’s remedial order. As noted above, the trial court’s judgment and remedial order remain stayed pending the appeal to the Court of Appeals.

Lights/Ultra Lights Cases

Overview

Plaintiffs in these class actions (some of which have not been certified as such), allege, among other things, that the uses of the terms “Lights” and/or “Ultra Lights” constitute deceptive and unfair trade practices, common

-35-

Altria Group, Inc. and Subsidiaries
Notes to Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements
(Unaudited)

law fraud, or RICO violations, and seek injunctive and equitable relief, including restitution and, in certain cases, punitive damages. These class actions have been brought against PM USA and, in certain instances, ALG and PMI or its subsidiaries, on behalf of individuals who purchased and consumed various brands of cigarettes, including Marlboro Lights, Marlboro Ultra Lights, Virginia Slims Lights and Superslims, Merit Lights and Cambridge Lights. Defenses raised in these cases include lack of misrepresentation, lack of causation, injury, and damages, the statute of limitations, express preemption by the Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act and implied preemption by the policies and directives of the Federal Trade Commission, non-liability under state statutory provisions exempting conduct that complies with federal regulatory directives, and the First Amendment. Nineteen cases are pending in Arkansas (2), Delaware (1), Florida (1), Illinois (1), Kansas (1), Maine (1), Massachusetts (1), Minnesota (1), Missouri (1), New Hampshire (1), New Mexico (1), New Jersey (1), New York (1), Oregon (1), Tennessee (1), Washington (1), and West Virginia (2). In addition, there are two cases pending in Israel. Other entities have stated that they are considering filing such actions against ALG, PMI, and PM USA.

To date, 11 courts in 12 cases have refused to certify class actions, reversed prior class certification decisions or have entered judgment in favor of PM USA. Trial courts in Arizona, Kansas, New Mexico, Oregon and Washington have refused to certify a class, an appellate court in Florida has overturned class certification by a trial court, the Ohio Supreme Court has overturned class certifications in two cases, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has dismissed a purported Lights class action brought in Louisiana federal court (Sullivan) on the grounds that plaintiffs’ claims were preempted by the Federal Cigarette Labeling & Advertising Act, a federal trial court in Maine has dismissed a purported class action on federal preemption grounds (Good), plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed an action in a federal trial court in Michigan after the court dismissed claims asserted under the Michigan Unfair Trade and Consumer Protection Act, and the Supreme Court of Illinois has overturned a judgment in favor of a plaintiff class in the Price case, which is discussed below. Plaintiffs’ appeal of the action in Maine is pending before the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. An intermediate appellate court in Oregon and the Supreme Court in Washington have denied plaintiffs’ motions for interlocutory review of the trial courts’ refusals to certify a class. Plaintiffs in the Oregon case failed to appeal by the deadline for doing so. Plaintiffs in the case in Washington have sought further review. Plaintiffs in the Florida case have petitioned the Florida Supreme Court for further review, and the Supreme Court has ordered briefing on why its Engle opinion should not control the decision in that case.

Trial courts have certified classes against PM USA in Massachusetts (Aspinall), Minnesota (Curtis), Missouri (Craft) and New York (Schwab). In addition, the United States Supreme Court has granted plaintiffs’ petition for writ of certiorari on the issue of the appropriate venue in a purported Lights class action brought in Arkansas (Watson). PM USA has appealed or otherwise challenged these class certification orders. Developments in these cases include:

• Aspinall:   In August 2004, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the class certification order. In April 2006, plaintiffs filed a motion to redefine the class to include all persons who after November 25, 1994 purchased packs or cartons of Marlboro Lights cigarettes in Massachusetts that displayed the legend “Lower Tar & Nicotine” (the original class definition did not include a reference to lower tar and nicotine). In August 2006, the trial court denied PM USA’s motion for summary judgment based on the state consumer protection statutory exemption and federal preemption. On motion of the parties, the trial court has subsequently reported its decision to deny summary judgment to the appeals court for review and the trial court proceedings are stayed pending completion of the appellate review. Motions for direct appellate review with the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court were granted in April 2007.

• Curtis:   In April 2005, the Minnesota Supreme Court denied PM USA’s petition for interlocutory review of the trial court’s class certification order. In September 2005, PM USA removed Curtis to federal court based on the Eighth Circuit’s decision in Watson, which upheld the removal of a Lights

-36-

Altria Group, Inc. and Subsidiaries
Notes to Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements
(Unaudited)

case to federal court based on the federal officer jurisdiction of the Federal Trade Commission. In February 2006, the federal court denied plaintiffs’ motion to remand the case to state court. The case is now pending in federal court. The case has been stayed pending the outcome of Dahl v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., which was argued before the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit in December 2006. In February 2007, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit issued its ruling in Dahl, and reversed the federal district court’s denial of plaintiffs’ motion to remand that case to the state trial court. Curtis continues to be stayed pending an appeal in the Minnesota state trial court in Dahl of the dismissal of that Lights class action based on preemption.

• Craft:   In August 2005, a Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed the class certification order. In September 2005, PM USA removed Craft to federal court based on the Eighth Circuit’s decision in Watson. In March 2006, the federal trial court granted plaintiffs’ motion and remanded the case to the Missouri state trial court. In May 2006, the Missouri Supreme Court declined to review the trial court’s class certification decision. A status conference is scheduled for June 30, 2007 in the trial court.

• Schwab:   In September 2005, the trial court granted in part defendants’ motion for partial summary judgment dismissing plaintiffs’ claims for equitable relief and denied a number of plaintiffs’ motions for summary judgment. In November 2005, the trial court ruled that the plaintiffs would be permitted to calculate damages on an aggregate basis and use “fluid recovery” theories to allocate them among class members. In September 2006, the trial court denied defendants’ summary judgment motions and granted plaintiffs’ motion for certification of a nationwide class of all United States residents that purchased cigarettes in the United States that were labeled “light” or “lights” from the first date defendants began selling such cigarettes until the date trial commences. The court also declined to certify the order for interlocutory appeal, declined to stay the case and ordered jury selection to begin in January 2007, with trial scheduled to begin immediately after the jury is impaneled. In October 2006, a single judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit granted PM USA’s petition for a temporary stay of pre-trial and trial proceedings pending disposition of the petitions for stay and interlocutory review by a three-judge panel of the Court of Appeals. In November 2006, the Second Circuit granted interlocutory review of the trial court’s class certification order and stayed the case before the trial court pending the appeal. Oral argument has been scheduled for July 10, 2007.

In addition to these cases, in December 2005, in the Miner case pending in the United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas, plaintiffs moved for certification of a class composed of individuals who purchased Marlboro Lights or Cambridge Lights brands in Arkansas, California, Colorado, and Michigan. In December 2005, defendants filed a motion to stay plaintiffs’ motion for class certification until the court ruled on PM USA’s motion to transfer venue to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas. This motion was granted in January 2006. PM USA’s motion for summary judgment based on preemption and the Arkansas statutory exemption is pending. Following the filing of this motion, plaintiffs moved to voluntarily dismiss Miner without prejudice, which PM USA opposed. The court then stayed the case pending the United States Supreme Court’s decision on a petition for writ of certiorari in the Watson case. In January 2007, the United States Supreme Court granted the petition for writ of certiorari and on April 25, 2007 heard oral arguments. In addition, plaintiffs’ motions for class certification are pending in cases in New Jersey and Tennessee.

The Price Case

Trial in the Price case commenced in state court in Illinois in January 2003, and in March 2003, the judge found in favor of the plaintiff class and awarded approximately $7.1 billion in compensatory damages and $3 billion in punitive damages against PM USA. In April 2003, the judge reduced the amount of the appeal bond that PM USA must provide and ordered PM USA to place a pre-existing 7.0%, $6 billion long-term note from ALG to

-37-

Altria Group, Inc. and Subsidiaries
Notes to Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements
(Unaudited)

PM USA in an escrow account with an Illinois financial institution. (Since this note is the result of an intercompany financing arrangement, it does not appear on the consolidated balance sheets of ALG.) The judge’s order also required PM USA to make cash deposits with the clerk of the Madison County Circuit Court in the following amounts: beginning October 1, 2003, an amount equal to the interest earned by PM USA on the ALG note ($210 million every six months), an additional $800 million in four equal quarterly installments between September 2003 and June 2004 and the payments of principal on the note, which are due in April 2008, 2009 and 2010. Plaintiffs appealed the judge’s order reducing the bond. In July 2003, the Illinois Fifth District Court of Appeals ruled that the trial court had exceeded its authority in reducing the bond. In September 2003, the Illinois Supreme Court upheld the reduced bond set by the trial court and announced it would hear PM USA’s appeal on the merits without the need for intermediate appellate court review. In December 2005, the Illinois Supreme Court reversed the trial court’s judgment in favor of the plaintiffs and remanded the case to the trial court with instructions that the case be dismissed. In May 2006, the Illinois Supreme Court denied plaintiffs’ motion for rehearing. In June 2006, the Illinois Supreme Court ordered the return to PM USA of approximately $2.2 billion being held in escrow to secure the appeal bond in the case and terminated PM USA’s obligations to pay administrative fees to the Madison County Clerk. In November 2006, the United States Supreme Court denied plaintiffs’ petition for writ of certiorari and, in December 2006, the Circuit Court of Madison County entered final judgment in favor of PM USA and dismissed the case with prejudice. In December 2006, the pre-existing 7.0%, $6 billion long-term note from ALG to PM USA that was in escrow pending the outcome of plaintiffs’ petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Supreme Court was returned to PM USA. Plaintiffs have filed a motion to vacate or withdraw the Price decision based upon the United States Supreme Court’s grant of the petition for writ of certiorari in the Watson case discussed above. PM USA has filed its opposition to this motion.

Certain Other Tobacco-Related Litigation

Tobacco Price Cases:  As of May 1, 2007, two cases were pending in Kansas and New Mexico in which plaintiffs allege that defendants, including PM USA and PMI, conspired to fix cigarette prices in violation of antitrust laws. ALG and PMI are defendants in the case in Kansas. Plaintiffs’ motions for class certification have been granted in both cases. In February 2005, the New Mexico Court of Appeals affirmed the class certification decision. In June 2006, defendants’ motion for summary judgment was granted in the New Mexico case. Plaintiffs in the New Mexico case have appealed.

Wholesale Leaders Cases:  In June 2003, certain wholesale distributors of cigarettes filed suit in Tennessee against PM USA seeking to enjoin the PM USA “2003 Wholesale Leaders” (“WL”) program that became available to wholesalers in June 2003. The complaint alleges that the WL program constitutes unlawful price discrimination and is an attempt to monopolize. In addition to an injunction, plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary damages, attorneys’ fees, costs and interest. The states of Tennessee and Mississippi intervened as plaintiffs in this litigation. In August 2003, the trial court issued a preliminary injunction, subject to plaintiffs’ posting a bond in the amount of $1 million, enjoining PM USA from implementing certain discount terms with respect to the sixteen wholesale distributor plaintiffs, and PM USA appealed. In September 2003, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit granted PM USA’s motion to stay the injunction pending PM USA’s expedited appeal. In January 2004, Tennessee filed a motion to dismiss its complaint, and its complaint was dismissed without prejudice in March 2004. In August 2005, the trial court granted PM USA’s motion for summary judgment, dismissed the case, and dissolved the preliminary injunction. Plaintiffs appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. In February 2007, the Sixth Circuit affirmed the trial court’s grant of PM USA’s motion for summary judgment.

Cigarette Contraband Cases:  In May 2000 and August 2001, various departments of Colombia and the European Community and 10 Member States filed suits in the United States against ALG and certain of its subsidiaries, including PM USA and PMI, and other cigarette manufacturers and their affiliates, alleging that defendants sold to distributors cigarettes that would be illegally imported into various jurisdictions. In February

-38-

Altria Group, Inc. and Subsidiaries
Notes to Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements
(Unaudited)

2002, the federal district court granted defendants’ motions to dismiss the actions. In January 2004, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the dismissals of the cases based on the common law Revenue Rule, which bars a foreign government from bringing civil claims in U.S. courts for the recovery of lost taxes. It is possible that future litigation related to cigarette contraband issues may be brought. In this regard, ALG believes that Canadian authorities are contemplating a legal proceeding based on an investigation of ALG entities relating to allegations of contraband shipments of cigarettes into Canada in the early to mid-1990s.

Cases Under the California Business and Professions Code:  In June 1997 and July 1998, two suits (Brown and Daniels) were filed in California state court alleging that domestic cigarette manufacturers, including PM USA and others, have violated California Business and Professions Code Sections 17200 and 17500 regarding unfair, unlawful and fraudulent business practices. Class certification was granted in both cases as to plaintiffs’ claims that class members are entitled to reimbursement of the costs of cigarettes purchased during the class periods and injunctive relief. In September 2002, the court granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment as to all claims in one of the cases (Daniels), and plaintiffs appealed. In October 2004, the California Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s ruling, and also denied plaintiffs’ motion for rehearing. In February 2005, the California Supreme Court agreed to hear plaintiffs’ appeal. In September 2004, the trial court in the other case granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment as to plaintiffs’ claims attacking defendants’ cigarette advertising and promotion and denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment on plaintiffs’ claims based on allegedly false affirmative statements. Plaintiffs’ motion for rehearing was denied. In March 2005, the court granted defendants’ motion to decertify the class based on a recent change in California law, which, in two July 2006 opinions, the California Supreme Court ruled applicable to pending cases. Plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration of the order that decertified the class was denied, and plaintiffs have appealed. In September 2006, an intermediate appellate court affirmed the trial court’s order decertifying the class in Brown. In November 2006, the California Supreme Court accepted review of the appellate court’s decision.

In May 2004, a lawsuit (Gurevitch) was filed in California state court on behalf of a purported class of all California residents who purchased the Merit brand of cigarettes since July 2000 to the present alleging that defendants, including PM USA, violated California’s Business and Professions Code Sections 17200 and 17500 regarding unfair, unlawful and fraudulent business practices, including false and misleading advertising. The complaint also alleges violations of California’s Consumer Legal Remedies Act. Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief, disgorgement, restitution, and attorneys’ fees. In July 2005, defendants’ motion to dismiss was granted; however, plaintiffs’ motion for leave to amend the complaint was also granted, and plaintiffs filed an amended complaint in September 2005. In October 2005, the court stayed this action pending the California Supreme Court’s rulings on two cases not involving PM USA. In July 2006, the California Supreme Court issued rulings in the two cases and held that a recent change in California law known as Proposition 64, which limits the ability to bring a lawsuit to only those plaintiffs who have “suffered injury in fact” and “lost money or property” as a result of defendant’s alleged statutory violations, properly applies to pending cases. In September 2006, the stay was lifted and defendants filed their demurrer to plaintiffs’ amended complaint. In March 2007, the court again stayed the action pending rulings from the California Supreme Court in two cases not involving PM USA.

Certain Other Actions

IRS Challenges to PMCC Leases:  The IRS concluded its examination of ALG’s consolidated tax returns for the years 1996 through 1999, and issued a final Revenue Agent’s Report (“RAR”) on March 15, 2006. The RAR disallowed benefits pertaining to certain PMCC leveraged lease transactions for the years 1996 through 1999. Altria Group, Inc. has agreed with all conclusions of the RAR, with the exception of the disallowance of benefits pertaining to several PMCC leveraged lease transactions for the years 1996 through 1999. PMCC will continue to assert its position regarding these leveraged lease transactions and contest approximately $150 million of tax and net interest assessed and paid with regard to them. The IRS may in the future challenge and disallow more of PMCC’s leveraged leases based on recent Revenue Rulings, a recent IRS Notice and

-39-

Altria Group, Inc. and Subsidiaries
Notes to Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements
(Unaudited)

subsequent case law addressing specific types of leveraged leases (lease-in/lease-out (“LILO”) and sale-in/lease-out (“SILO”) transactions). PMCC believes that the position and supporting case law described in the RAR, Revenue Rulings and the IRS Notice are incorrectly applied to PMCC’s transactions and that its leveraged leases are factually and legally distinguishable in material respects from the IRS’s position. PMCC and ALG intend to vigorously defend against any challenges based on that position through litigation. In this regard, on October 16, 2006, PMCC filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York to claim refunds for a portion of these tax payments and associated interest. However, should PMCC’s position not be upheld, PMCC may have to accelerate the payment of significant amounts of federal income tax and significantly lower its earnings to reflect the recalculation of the income from the affected leveraged leases, which could have a material effect on the earnings and cash flows of Altria Group, Inc. in a particular fiscal quarter or fiscal year. PMCC considered this matter in its adoption of FASB Interpretation No. 48 and FASB Staff Position No. FAS 13-2.

It is possible that there could be adverse developments in pending cases. An unfavorable outcome or settlement of pending tobacco related litigation could encourage the commencement of additional litigation. 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 42 states now limit the dollar amount of bonds or require no bond at all.

ALG 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. Except as discussed elsewhere in this Note 11, Contingencies: (i) management has not concluded that it is probable that a loss has been incurred in any of the pending tobacco-related cases; (ii) management is unable to estimate the possible loss or range of loss that could result from an unfavorable outcome of any of the pending tobacco-related cases; and (iii) accordingly, management has not provided any amounts in the consolidated financial statements for unfavorable outcomes, if any.

It is possible that Altria Group, Inc.’s consolidated results of operations, cash flows or financial position could be materially affected in a particular fiscal quarter or fiscal year by an unfavorable outcome or settlement of certain pending litigation. Nevertheless, although litigation is subject to uncertainty, management believes the litigation environment has substantially improved. ALG 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 a number of valid defenses to the litigation pending against it, as well as valid bases for appeal of adverse verdicts against it. All such cases are, and will continue to be, vigorously defended. However, ALG and its subsidiaries may enter into settlement discussions in particular cases if they believe it is in the best interests of ALG’s stockholders to do so.

Third-Party Guarantees

At March 31, 2007, Altria Group, Inc.’s third-party guarantees, which are primarily related to excise taxes and divestiture activities, approximated $283 million, of which $278 million have no specified expiration dates. The remainder expire through 2010, with none expiring through March 31, 2008. Altria Group, Inc. is required to perform under these guarantees in the event that a third party fails to make contractual payments or achieve performance measures. Altria Group, Inc. has a liability of $22 million on its condensed consolidated balance sheet at March 31, 2007, relating to these guarantees. In the ordinary course of business, certain subsidiaries of ALG have agreed to indemnify a limited number of third parties in the event of future litigation.

-40-

Altria Group, Inc. and Subsidiaries
Notes to Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements
(Unaudited)

Note 12. Income Taxes:

Altria Group, Inc. accounts for income taxes in accordance with SFAS No. 109, “Accounting for Income Taxes.” Under SFAS No. 109, deferred tax assets and liabilities are determined based on the difference between the financial statement and tax bases of assets and liabilities, using enacted tax rates in effect for the year in which the differences are expected to reverse. Significant judgment is required in determining income tax provisions and in evaluating tax positions.

Altria Group, Inc.’s U.S. subsidiaries join in the filing of a U.S. federal consolidated income tax return. The U.S. federal statute of limitations remains open for the year 2000 and onward with years 2000 to 2003 currently under examination by the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”). Foreign and U.S. state jurisdictions have statutes of limitations generally ranging from 3 to 5 years. Years still open to examination by foreign tax authorities in major jurisdictions include Germany (2002 onward), Indonesia (2000 onward), Russia (2005 onward), and Switzerland (2005 onward). Altria Group, Inc. is currently under examination in various U.S. state and foreign jurisdictions.

On January 1, 2007, Altria Group, Inc. adopted the provisions of the Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) Interpretation No. 48, “Accounting for Uncertainty in Income Taxes – an interpretation of FASB Statement No. 109” (“FIN 48”). The Interpretation prescribes a recognition threshold and a measurement attribute for the financial statement recognition and measurement of tax positions taken or expected to be taken in a tax return. For those benefits to be recognized, a tax position must be more-likely-than-not to be sustained upon examination by taxing authorities. The amount recognized is measured as the largest amount of benefit that is greater than 50 percent likely of being realized upon ultimate settlement. As a result of the implementation of FIN 48, Altria Group, Inc. recognized a $1,021 million decrease in the liability for unrecognized tax benefits. This decrease in the liability resulted in an increase to stockholders’ equity as of January 1, 2007 of $857 million ($835 million, net of minority interest), a reduction in goodwill of $85 million at Kraft, and a reduction of federal deferred tax benefits of $79 million.

As of January 1, 2007, after the implementation of FIN 48, Altria Group, Inc.’s unrecognized tax benefits were $1,053 million, including $619 million related to Kraft. The amount that, if recognized, would impact the effective tax rate was $848 million, including approximately $530 million related to Kraft. The remainder, if recognized, would principally affect deferred taxes.

Altria Group, Inc.’s unrecognized tax benefits decreased to $700 million as of March 31, 2007, principally due to the spin-off of Kraft. The amount that, if recognized, would impact the effective tax rate is $573 million. Under the Tax Sharing Agreement between Altria Group, Inc. and Kraft, Kraft is responsible for its own pre spin-off tax obligations. However, due to the U.S. federal consolidated tax return regulations, Altria Group, Inc. remains severally liable for Kraft’s pre spin-off federal taxes. As a result, Altria Group, Inc. continues to include $270 million of Kraft’s unrecognized tax benefits in its liability for uncertain tax positions for which Kraft is responsible under the Tax Sharing Agreement. A corresponding receivable from Kraft is included in other assets.

Altria Group, Inc. recognizes accrued interest and penalties associated with uncertain tax positions as part of the tax provision. As of January 1, 2007, Altria Group, Inc. had $292 million of accrued interest and penalties of which approximately $125 million related to Kraft. The accrued interest and penalties decreased to $242 million at March 31, 2007, principally as a result of the Kraft spin-off. This amount includes $70 million ($46 million after-tax) of Kraft federal interest for which Kraft is responsible under the Tax Sharing Agreement. A corresponding receivable from Kraft is included in other assets.

After adjusting the unrecognized tax benefits of $1,053 million and the interest and penalties of $292 million, discussed above, for certain indirect benefits the liability for income tax contingencies recorded on Altria Group, Inc.’s balance sheet at January 1, 2007, was $1,241 million. After adjusting the unrecognized tax benefits of $700 million and the interest and penalties of $242 million, discussed above, for certain indirect benefits the liability for income tax contingencies recorded on Altria Group, Inc’s balance sheet at March 31, 2007 was $836 million. As a result of the Tax Sharing Agreement and the U.S. federal consolidated tax return regulations, Altria Group, Inc.’s balance sheet at March 31, 2007 includes in other assets a receivable from Kraft of $316 million.

-41-

Altria Group, Inc. and Subsidiaries
Notes to Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements
(Unaudited)

It is reasonably possible that within the next 12 months certain U.S. state and foreign examinations will be resolved, which could result in a decrease in unrecognized tax benefits and interest and penalties of up to $75 million and $30 million, respectively.

Altria Group, Inc. adopted the provisions of FASB Staff Position No. FAS 13-2, “Accounting for a Change or Projected Change in the Timing of Cash Flows Relating to Income Taxes Generated by a Leveraged Lease Transaction,” effective January 1, 2007. This Staff Position requires the revenue recognition calculation to be reevaluated if the projected timing of income tax cash flows generated by a leveraged lease is revised. The adoption of this Staff Position by Altria Group, Inc. resulted in a reduction to stockholders’ equity of $124 million as of January 1, 2007.

The IRS concluded its examination of Altria Group, Inc.’s consolidated tax returns for the years 1996 through 1999, and issued a final Revenue Agents Report (“RAR”) on March 15, 2006. Altria Group, Inc. agreed with the RAR, with the exception of certain leasing matters discussed below. Consequently, in March 2006, Altria Group, Inc. recorded non-cash tax benefits of $1.0 billion, which principally represented the reversal of tax reserves following the issuance of and agreement with the RAR. Altria Group, Inc. reimbursed $337 million in cash to Kraft for its portion of the $1.0 billion in tax benefits, as well as pre-tax interest of $46 million. The amounts related to Kraft were reclassified to income from discontinued operations. The tax reversal resulted in an increase to earnings from continuing operations of $631 million for the first quarter of 2006.

Altria Group, Inc. has agreed with all conclusions of the RAR, with the exception of the disallowance of benefits pertaining to several PMCC leveraged lease transactions for the years 1996 through 1999. PMCC will continue to assert its position regarding these leveraged lease transactions and contest approximately $150 million of tax and net interest assessed and paid with regard to them. The IRS may in the future challenge and disallow more of PMCC’s leveraged leases based on recent Revenue Rulings, a recent IRS Notice and subsequent case law addressing specific types of leveraged leases (lease-in/lease-out (“LILO”) and sale-in/lease-out (“SILO”) transactions). PMCC believes that the position and supporting case law described in the RAR, Revenue Rulings and the IRS Notice are incorrectly applied to PMCC’s transactions and that its leveraged leases are factually and legally distinguishable in material respects from the IRS’s position. PMCC and ALG intend to vigorously defend against any challenges based on that position through litigation. In this regard, on October 16, 2006, PMCC filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York to claim refunds for a portion of these tax payments and associated interest. However, should PMCC’s position not be upheld, PMCC may have to accelerate the payment of significant amounts of federal income tax and significantly lower its earnings to reflect the recalculation of the income from the affected leveraged leases, which could have a material effect on the earnings and cash flows of Altria Group, Inc. in a particular fiscal quarter or fiscal year. PMCC considered this matter in its adoption of FASB Interpretation No. 48 and FASB Staff Position No. FAS 13-2.

Note 13. New Accounting Standard:

In September 2006, the FASB issued SFAS No. 157 “Fair Value Measurements,” which will be effective for financial statements issued for fiscal years beginning after November 15, 2007. This statement defines fair value, establishes a framework for measuring fair value and expands disclosures about fair value measurements. The adoption of this statement will not have a material impact on Altria Group, Inc.’s financial statements.

-42-

Item 2.	MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF
	FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS

Description of the Company

Throughout Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations, the term “Altria Group, Inc.” refers to the consolidated financial position, results of operations and cash flows of the Altria family of companies and the term “ALG” refers solely to the parent company. ALG’s wholly-owned subsidiaries, Philip Morris USA Inc. (“PM USA”) and Philip Morris International Inc. (“PMI”), are engaged in the manufacture and sale of cigarettes and other tobacco products. Philip Morris Capital Corporation (“PMCC”), another wholly-owned subsidiary, maintains a portfolio of leveraged and direct finance leases. In addition, ALG held a 28.6% economic and voting interest in SABMiller plc (“SABMiller”) at March 31, 2007. ALG’s access to the operating cash flows of its subsidiaries consists of cash received from the payment of dividends and interest, and the repayment of amounts borrowed from ALG by its subsidiaries.

Kraft Spin-Off

On March 30, 2007 (the “Distribution Date”), Altria Group, Inc. spun-off all of its remaining interest (88.9%) in Kraft Foods Inc. (“Kraft”) on a pro rata basis to Altria Group, Inc. stockholders of record as of the close of business on March 16, 2007 (the “Record Date”) in a tax-free distribution. Based on the number of shares of Altria Group, Inc. outstanding at the Record Date, the distribution ratio was 0.692024 of a share of Kraft for every share of Altria Group, Inc. common stock outstanding. Altria Group, Inc. stockholders received cash in lieu of fractional shares of Kraft. Following the distribution, only Class A common shares of Kraft are outstanding, and Altria Group, Inc. does not own any shares of Kraft. Altria Group, Inc. has announced its intention to adjust its current dividend so that its stockholders who retain their Altria Group, Inc. and Kraft shares will receive, in the aggregate, the same dividend rate as before the distribution. As in the past, all decisions regarding future dividend increases will be made independently by the Altria Group, Inc. Board of Directors and the Kraft Board of Directors, for their respective companies.

Holders of Altria Group, Inc. stock options were treated similarly to public stockholders and accordingly, had their stock awards split into two instruments. Holders of Altria Group, Inc. stock options received the following stock options, which, immediately after the spin-off, had an aggregate intrinsic value equal to the intrinsic value of the pre-spin Altria Group, Inc. options:

• a new Kraft option to acquire the number of shares of Kraft Class A common stock equal to the product of (a) the number of Altria Group, Inc. options held by such person on the Distribution Date and (b) the distribution ratio of 0.692024 mentioned above; and

• an adjusted Altria Group, Inc. option for the same number of shares of Altria Group, Inc. common stock with a reduced exercise price.

The new Kraft option has an exercise price equal to the Kraft market price at the time of the distribution ($31.66) multiplied by the Option Conversion Ratio, which represents the exercise price of the original Altria Group, Inc. option divided by the Altria Group, Inc. market price immediately before the distribution ($87.81). The reduced exercise price of the adjusted Altria Group, Inc. option is determined by multiplying the Altria Group, Inc. market price immediately following the distribution ($65.90) by the Option Conversion Ratio.

Holders of Altria Group, Inc. restricted stock or stock rights awarded prior to January 31, 2007, retained their existing award and received restricted stock or stock rights of Kraft Class A common stock. The amount of Kraft restricted stock or stock rights awarded to such holders was calculated using the same formula set forth above with respect to new Kraft options. All of the restricted stock and stock rights will vest at the completion of the original restriction period (typically, three years from the date of the original grant). Recipients of Altria

-43-

Group, Inc. stock rights awarded on January 31, 2007, did not receive restricted stock or stock rights of Kraft. Rather, they received additional stock rights of Altria Group, Inc. to preserve the intrinsic value of the original award.

To the extent that employees of the remaining Altria Group, Inc. received Kraft stock options, Altria Group, Inc. reimbursed Kraft in cash for the Black-Scholes fair value of the stock options received. To the extent that Kraft employees held Altria Group, Inc. stock options, Kraft reimbursed Altria Group, Inc. in cash for the Black-Scholes fair value of the stock options. To the extent that holders of Altria Group, Inc. stock rights received Kraft stock rights, Altria Group, Inc. paid to Kraft the fair value of the Kraft stock rights less the value of projected forfeitures. Based upon the number of Altria Group, Inc. stock awards outstanding at the Distribution Date, the net amount of these reimbursements resulted in a payment of $179 million from Kraft to Altria Group, Inc. in April 2007. The reimbursement from Kraft is reflected as an increase to the additional paid-in capital of Altria Group, Inc. on the March 31, 2007 condensed consolidated balance sheet.

Kraft was previously included in the Altria Group, Inc. consolidated federal income tax return, and federal income tax contingencies were recorded as liabilities on the balance sheet of ALG. As part of the intercompany account settlement discussed below, ALG reimbursed Kraft in cash for these liabilities, which as of March 30, 2007, were approximately $305 million, plus pre-tax interest of $63 million ($41 million after taxes). ALG also reimbursed Kraft in cash for the federal income tax consequences of the adoption of Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) Interpretation No. 48, “Accounting for Uncertainty in Income Taxes – an interpretation of FASB Statement No. 109” (“FIN 48”) (approximately $70 million plus pre-tax interest of $14 million, $9 million after taxes). See Note 12. Income Taxes for a discussion of the FIN 48 adoption and the Tax Sharing Agreement between Altria Group, Inc. and Kraft.

A subsidiary of ALG previously provided Kraft with certain services at cost plus a 5% management fee. After the Distribution Date, Kraft undertook these activities, and any remaining limited services provided to Kraft will cease in 2007. All intercompany accounts were settled in cash within 30 days of the Distribution Date. The settlement of the intercompany accounts (including the amounts discussed above related to stock awards and tax contingencies) resulted in a net payment from Kraft to ALG of $85 million in April 2007.

The distribution resulted in a net decrease to Altria Group, Inc.’s stockholders’ equity of $27.4 billion on the Distribution Date.

Altria Group, Inc. has reflected the results of Kraft prior to the Distribution Date as discontinued operations on the condensed consolidated statements of earnings and the condensed consolidated statements of cash flows for all periods presented. The assets and liabilities related to Kraft were reclassified and reflected as discontinued operations on the condensed consolidated balance sheet at December 31, 2006.

-44-

Executive Summary

The following executive summary is intended to provide significant highlights of the Discussion and Analysis that follows.

Consolidated Operating Results for the Quarter Ended March 31, 2007 - The changes in Altria Group, Inc.’s earnings from continuing operations and diluted earnings per share (“EPS”) from continuing operations for the quarter ended March 31, 2007, from the quarter ended March 31, 2006, were due primarily to the following (in millions, except per share data):

				Diluted EPS
	Earnings from			From
	Continuing			Continuing
	Operations			Operations
For the quarter ended March 31, 2006	$	2,597		$	1.24
2006 International tobacco Italian antitrust charge		61			0.03
2006 Asset impairment and exit costs		1
2006 Interest on tax reserve transfers to Kraft		29			0.01
2006 Tax items		(631	)		(0.30	)
Subtotal 2006 items		(540	)		(0.26	)
2007 Asset impairment and exit costs		(81	)		(0.04	)
2007 Recoveries from airline industry exposure		83			0.04
2007 Interest on tax reserve transfers to Kraft		(50	)		(0.02	)
Subtotal 2007 items		(48	)		(0.02	)
Currency		62			0.03
Change in tax rate		10
Operations		44			0.02
For the quarter ended March 31, 2007	$	2,125		$	1.01

See discussion of events affecting the comparability of statement of earnings amounts in the Consolidated Operating Results section of the following Discussion and Analysis.

International Tobacco Italian Antitrust Charge – During the first quarter of 2006, PMI recorded a $61 million charge related to an Italian antitrust action.

Recoveries from Airline Industry Exposure - During the first quarter of 2007, PMCC recorded a pre-tax gain of $129 million ($83 million after taxes) on the sale of its ownership interest in certain leveraged lease investments in aircraft, which represented a partial cash recovery of amounts that had been previously written down.

Currency - The favorable currency impact is due primarily to the weakness of the U.S. dollar versus the euro and the Russian ruble.

Income Taxes – Altria Group, Inc.’s income tax rate increased 20.7 percentage points to 33.5%. The 2006 tax rate includes $631 million of non-cash tax benefits, representing the reversal of tax reserves after the U.S. Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) concluded its examination of Altria Group, Inc.’s consolidated tax returns for the years 1996 through 1999 in the first quarter of 2006.

Interest on Tax Reserve Transfers to Kraft – As further discussed in Note 1. Basis of Presentation and Kraft Spin-Off, and Note 12. Income Taxes, the interest on tax reserves transferred to Kraft is related to the spin-off and the adoption of Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) Interpretation No. 48, “Accounting for

-45-

Uncertainty in Income Taxes – an interpretation of FASB Statement No. 109” (“FIN 48”) in 2007 and the conclusion of an IRS audit in 2006.

Continuing Operations – The increase in earnings from continuing operations was due primarily to the following:

• Higher international tobacco income, reflecting higher pricing, partially offset by higher marketing, administration and research costs, and unfavorable volume/mix;

partially offset by:

• Lower financial services income (after excluding the impact of the recoveries from airline industry exposure), reflecting lower asset management gains and lower revenues.

For further details, see the Consolidated Operating Results and Operating Results by Business Segment sections of the following Discussion and Analysis.

2007 Forecasted Results - On April 19, 2007, Altria Group, Inc. raised its forecast for reported 2007 full-year diluted earnings per share from continuing operations to a range of $4.20 to $4.25, up from its previously disclosed range of $4.15 to $4.20, reflecting an improved outlook at PMI, due partially to favorable currency. The forecast reflects a higher tax rate in 2007 versus 2006, and includes net charges of approximately $0.03 per share, of which $0.02 per share were recorded in the first quarter of 2007. The forecast excludes Kraft, which is accounted for as a discontinued operation in 2007, reflecting distribution of Kraft shares. The forecast also excludes the impact of any potential future acquisitions or divestitures. The factors described in the Cautionary Factors That May Affect Future Results section of the following Discussion and Analysis represent continuing risks to this forecast.

Discussion and Analysis

Consolidated Operating Results

See pages 64-67 for a discussion of Cautionary Factors That May Affect Future Results.

	For the Three Months Ended
	March 31,
	2007			2006
	(in millions)
Net revenues:
Domestic tobacco	$	4,245		$	4,323
International tobacco		13,268			11,801
Financial services		43			108
Net revenues	$	17,556		$	16,232
Operating income:
Operating companies income:
Domestic tobacco	$	1,130		$	1,116
International tobacco		2,154			1,967
Financial services		160			96
Amortization of intangibles		(6	)		(5	)
General corporate expenses		(188	)		(113	)
Operating income	$	3,250		$	3,061

As discussed in Note 10. Segment Reporting, management reviews operating companies income, which is defined as operating income before general corporate expenses and amortization of intangibles, to evaluate

-46-

segment performance and allocate resources. Management believes it is appropriate to disclose this measure to help investors analyze the business performance and trends of the various business segments.

The following events that occurred during the quarter ended March 31, 2007 and 2006, affected the comparability of statement of earnings amounts.

• Income Tax Benefit – The IRS concluded its examination of Altria Group, Inc.’s consolidated tax returns for the years 1996 through 1999, and issued a final Revenue Agent’s Report (“RAR”) on March 15, 2006. Consequently, in March 2006, Altria Group, Inc. recorded non-cash tax benefits of approximately $1.0 billion, which principally represented the reversal of tax reserves following the issuance of and agreement with the RAR. Altria Group, Inc. reimbursed $337 million in cash to Kraft for its portion of the $1.0 billion in tax benefits, as well as pre-tax interest of $46 million. The amounts related to Kraft were reclassified to income from discontinued operations. The tax reversal resulted in an increase to earnings from continuing operations of $631 million for the first quarter of 2006.

• Italian Antitrust Charge – During the first quarter of 2006, PMI recorded a $61 million charge related to an Italian antitrust action.

• Asset Impairment and Exit Costs – For the quarters ended March 31, 2007 and 2006, pre-tax asset impairment and exit costs consisted of the following:

		For the Three Months Ended
		March 31,
		2007		2006
		(in millions)
Separation program	International tobacco	$	62	$	2
Separation program	General corporate		17
Kraft spin-off fees	General corporate		44
Asset impairment and exit costs		$	123	$	2

	Pre-tax charges at PMI primarily related to severance costs for the streamlining of various administrative functions and operations. Cash payments related to exit costs at PMI were $23 million for the three months ended March 31, 2007. Remaining future cash payments for exit costs incurred in the first quarter of 2007 and previous periods are expected to be approximately $140 million.
	General corporate pre-tax charges primarily related to investment banking fees associated with the Kraft spin-off and charges related to the streamlining of various corporate functions.
•	Recoveries from Airline Industry Exposure – During the first quarter of 2007, PMCC recorded a pre-tax gain of $129 million on the sale of its ownership interest in certain leveraged lease investments in aircraft, which represented a partial cash recovery of amounts that had been previously written down.
•	Discontinued Operations – As more fully discussed in Note 1. Basis of Presentation and Kraft Spin-Off, and Note 7. Divestitures, on March 30, 2007, Altria Group, Inc. distributed all of its remaining interest in Kraft on a pro-rata basis to Altria Group, Inc. stockholders in a tax-free distribution. Altria Group, Inc. has reflected the results of Kraft prior to the distribution date as discontinued operations on the condensed consolidated statements of earnings and the condensed consolidated statements of cash flows for all periods presented. The assets and liabilities related to Kraft were reclassified and reflected as discontinued operations on the condensed consolidated balance sheet at December 31, 2006.

-47-

Consolidated Results of Operations for the Three Months Ended March 31, 2007

The following discussion compares consolidated operating results for the three months ended March 31, 2007, with the three months ended March 31, 2006.

Net revenues, which include excise taxes billed to customers, increased $1.3 billion (8.2%). Excluding excise taxes, net revenues increased $351 million (4.0%), due primarily to an increase in international tobacco revenues and favorable currency, partially offset by lower revenues from the financial services and domestic tobacco businesses.

Operating income increased $189 million (6.2%), due primarily to higher operating results from the international tobacco business, an increase at PMCC due to cash recoveries in 2007 from assets which had previously been written down, the favorable impact of currency, and the 2006 Italian antitrust charge at PMI, partially offset by higher charges for asset impairment and exit costs.

Currency movements increased net revenues by $722 million ($274 million, after excluding the impact of currency movements on excise taxes) and operating income by $96 million. These increases were due primarily to the weakness versus prior year of the U.S. dollar against the euro and Russian ruble.

Interest and other debt expense, net, of $114 million decreased $33 million, due primarily to lower debt levels, partially offset by higher interest on tax reserve transfers to Kraft.

Altria Group, Inc.’s income tax rate increased 20.7 percentage points to 33.5%. The 2006 tax rate includes $631 million of non-cash tax benefits, principally representing the reversal of tax reserves after the U.S. IRS concluded its examination of Altria Group, Inc.’s consolidated tax returns for the years 1996 through 1999 in the first quarter of 2006.

Earnings from continuing operations of $2.1 billion decreased $472 million (18.2%), due primarily to the reversal of tax reserves in 2006, partially offset by higher operating income and lower interest and other debt expense, net. Diluted and basic EPS from continuing operations of $1.01, decreased by 18.5% and 19.2%, respectively.

Earnings from discontinued operations, net of income taxes and minority interest (which represent the results of Kraft prior to the spin-off), decreased $255 million (29.0%), reflecting lower net earnings from Kraft due primarily to the 2006 reversal of tax reserves.

Net earnings of $2.8 billion decreased $727 million (20.9%). Diluted and basic EPS from net earnings of $1.30 and $1.31, respectively, decreased by 21.2% and 21.6%, respectively.

Operating Results by Business Segment

Tobacco

Business Environment

Taxes, Legislation, Regulation and Other Matters Regarding Tobacco and Smoking

The tobacco industry, both in the United States and abroad, faces a number of challenges that may adversely affect the business, volume, results of operations, cash flows and financial position of PM USA, PMI and ALG.

-48-

These challenges, which are discussed below and in the Cautionary Factors That May Affect Future Results section, include:

• pending and threatened litigation and bonding requirements as discussed in Note 11. Contingencies (“Note 11”);

• the trial court’s decision in the civil lawsuit filed by the United States government against various cigarette manufacturers and others, including PM USA and ALG, discussed in Note 11;

• punitive damages verdicts against PM USA in certain smoking and health cases discussed in Note 11;

• competitive disadvantages related to price increases in the United States attributable to the settlement of certain tobacco litigation;

• actual and proposed excise tax increases worldwide as well as changes in tax structures in foreign markets;

• the sale of counterfeit cigarettes by third parties;

• the sale of cigarettes by third parties over the Internet and by other means designed to avoid the collection of applicable taxes;

• price gaps and changes in price gaps between premium and lowest price brands;

• diversion into one market of products intended for sale in another;

• the outcome of proceedings and investigations, and the potential assertion of claims, relating to contraband shipments of cigarettes;

• governmental investigations;

• actual and proposed requirements regarding the use and disclosure of cigarette ingredients and other proprietary information;

• actual and proposed restrictions on imports in certain jurisdictions outside the United States;

• actual and proposed restrictions affecting tobacco manufacturing, marketing, advertising and sales;

• actual and proposed tobacco regulation and legislation in the United States that could put PMI at a competitive disadvantage;

• governmental and private bans and restrictions on smoking;

• the diminishing prevalence of smoking and increased efforts by tobacco control advocates to further restrict smoking;

• governmental requirements setting ignition propensity standards for cigarettes; and

• actual and proposed tobacco legislation and regulation both inside and outside the United States.

In the ordinary course of business, PM USA and PMI are subject to many influences that can impact the timing of sales to customers, including the timing of holidays and other annual or special events, the timing of

-49-

promotions, customer incentive programs and customer inventory programs, as well as the actual or speculated timing of pricing actions and tax-driven price increases.

Excise Taxes: Cigarettes are subject to substantial excise taxes in the United States and to substantial taxation abroad. Significant increases in cigarette-related taxes or fees have been proposed or enacted and are likely to continue to be proposed or enacted within the United States, the Member States of the European Union (the “EU”) and in other foreign jurisdictions. In addition, in certain jurisdictions, PMI’s products are subject to discriminatory tax structures and inconsistent rulings and interpretations on complex methodologies to determine excise and other tax burdens.

Tax increases and discriminatory tax structures are expected to continue to have an adverse impact on sales of cigarettes by PM USA and PMI, due to lower consumption levels and to a shift in consumer purchases from the premium to the non-premium or discount segments or to other low-priced or low-taxed tobacco products or to counterfeit and contraband products.

Minimum Retail Selling Price Laws: Several EU Member States have enacted laws establishing a minimum retail selling price for cigarettes and, in some cases, other tobacco products. The European Commission has commenced infringement proceedings against these Member States, claiming that minimum retail selling price systems infringe EU law. In March 2007, the European Commission brought an action against France in the European Court of Justice on the ground that France’s minimum retail selling price system infringes EU law. If the European Commission’s actions are successful, they could adversely impact excise tax levels and/or price gaps in those markets.

Tar and Nicotine Test Methods and Brand Descriptors: A number of governments and public health organizations throughout the world have determined that the existing standardized machine-based methods for measuring tar and nicotine yields do not provide useful information about tar and nicotine deliveries and that such results are misleading to smokers. For example, in the 2001 publication of Monograph 13, the U.S. National Cancer Institute (“NCI”) concluded that measurements based on the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) standardized method “do not offer smokers meaningful information on the amount of tar and nicotine they will receive from a cigarette” or “on the relative amounts of tar and nicotine exposure likely to be received from smoking different brands of cigarettes.” Thereafter, the FTC issued a press release indicating that it would be working with the NCI to determine what changes should be made to its testing method to “correct the limitations” identified in Monograph 13. In 2002, PM USA petitioned the FTC to promulgate new rules governing the use of existing standardized machine-based methodologies for measuring tar and nicotine yields and descriptors. That petition remains pending. In addition, the World Health Organization (“WHO”) has concluded that these standardized measurements are “seriously flawed” and that measurements based upon the current standardized methodology “are misleading and should not be displayed.” The International Organization for Standardization (“ISO”) established a working group, chaired by the WHO, to propose a new measurement method which would more accurately reflect human smoking behavior. The working group has issued a final report proposing two alternative smoking methods. Currently, ISO is in the process of deciding whether to begin further development of the two methods or to wait for additional guidance from the governing body of the WHO’s Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (“FCTC”).

In light of public health concerns about the limitations of current machine measurement methodologies, governments and public health organizations have increasingly challenged the use of descriptors — such as “light,” “mild,” and “low tar” — that are based on measurements produced by those methods. For example, the European Commission has concluded that descriptors based on standardized tar and nicotine yield measurements “may mislead the consumer” and has prohibited the use of descriptors. Public health organizations have also urged that descriptors be banned. For example, the Scientific Advisory Committee of the WHO concluded that descriptors such as “light, ultra-light, mild and low tar” are “misleading terms” and should be banned. In 2003, the WHO proposed the FCTC, a treaty that requires signatory nations to adopt and implement measures to ensure that descriptive terms do not create “the false impression that a particular tobacco product is less harmful than other tobacco products.” Such terms “may include ‘low tar,’ ‘light,’ ‘ultra-light,’ or ‘mild.’” For a discussion of the FCTC, see below under the heading “The WHO’s Framework Convention on

-50-

Tobacco Control.” In addition, public health organizations in Canada and the United States have advocated “a complete prohibition of the use of deceptive descriptors such as ‘light’ and ‘mild.’” In July 2005, PMI’s Australian affiliates agreed to refrain from using descriptors in Australia on cigarettes, cigarette packaging and on material intended to be disseminated to the general public in Australia in relation to the marketing, advertising or sale of cigarettes.

See Note 11, which describes pending litigation concerning the use of brand descriptors. As discussed in Note 11, in August 2006, a federal trial court entered judgment in favor of the United States government in its lawsuit against various cigarette manufacturers and others, including PM USA and ALG, and enjoined the defendants from using brand descriptors, such as “lights,” “ultra-lights” and “low tar.” In October 2006, the Court of Appeals stayed enforcement of the judgment pending its review of the trial court’s decision.

Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) Regulations: On February 15, 2007, bipartisan legislation was introduced in the United States Senate and House of Representatives that, if enacted, would grant the FDA broad authority to regulate the design, manufacture and marketing of tobacco products and disclosures of related information. This legislation would also grant the FDA the authority to address counterfeit and contraband tobacco products and would impose fees to pay for the cost of regulation and other matters. ALG and PM USA support this legislation. Whether Congress will grant the FDA broad authority over tobacco products cannot be predicted.

Tobacco Quota Buy-Out: In October 2004, the Fair and Equitable Tobacco Reform Act of 2004 (“FETRA”) was signed into law. FETRA provides for the elimination of the federal tobacco quota and price support program through an industry-funded buy-out of tobacco growers and quota holders. The cost of the buy-out is approximately $9.5 billion and is being paid over 10 years by manufacturers and importers of each kind of tobacco product. The cost is being allocated based on the relative market shares of manufacturers and importers of each kind of tobacco product. The quota buy-out payments will offset already scheduled payments to the National Tobacco Grower Settlement Trust (the “NTGST”), a trust fund established in 1999 by four of the major domestic tobacco product manufacturers to provide aid to tobacco growers and quota holders. Manufacturers and importers of tobacco products are also obligated to cover any losses (up to $500 million) that the government may incur on the disposition of tobacco pool stock accumulated under the previous tobacco price support program. PM USA has paid $138 million for its share of the tobacco pool stock losses. For a discussion of the NTGST, see Note 11. Altria Group, Inc. does not anticipate that the quota buy-out will have a material adverse impact on its consolidated results in 2007 and beyond.

Ingredient Disclosure Laws: Jurisdictions inside and outside the United States have enacted or proposed legislation or regulations that would require cigarette manufacturers to disclose the ingredients used in the manufacture of cigarettes and, in certain cases, to provide toxicological information. In some jurisdictions, governments have prohibited the use of certain ingredients, and proposals have been discussed to further prohibit the use of ingredients. Under an EU tobacco product directive, tobacco companies are now required to disclose ingredients and toxicological information to each Member State. In implementing the EU tobacco product directive, the Netherlands has issued a decree that would require tobacco companies to disclose the ingredients used in each brand of cigarettes, including quantities used. PMI and other tobacco companies filed an action to contest this decree on the grounds of lack of protection of proprietary information. In December 2005, the District Court of the Hague agreed with the tobacco companies that certain information required to be disclosed under the decree constitutes proprietary trade secrets. However, the court also held that the companies’ interests in protecting their trade secrets must be balanced against the public’s right to information about the ingredients in tobacco products. The court therefore upheld the decree and instructed the government to weigh the public’s interests against the companies’ interests, in implementing the ingredient disclosure requirements in the decree. In March 2006, PMI, the government and others appealed these decisions. Concurrently with pursuing this appeal, PMI is discussing with the relevant authorities the appropriate implementation of the EU tobacco product directive in the Netherlands and throughout the European Union.

Health Effects of Smoking and Exposure to Environmental Tobacco Smoke (“ETS”): Reports with respect to the health risks of cigarette smoking have been publicized for many years, including most recently in a June

-51-

2006 United States Surgeon General report on ETS entitled “The Health Consequences of Involuntary Exposure to Tobacco Smoke.” The sale, promotion, and use of cigarettes continue to be subject to increasing governmental regulation. Further, it is not possible to predict the results of ongoing scientific research or the types of future scientific research into the health risks of tobacco exposure. Although most regulation of ETS exposure to date has been done at the local level through bans in public establishments, the State of California is in the process of regulating ETS exposure in the ambient air at the state level. In January 2006, the California Air Resources Board (“CARB”) listed ETS as a toxic air contaminant under state law. CARB is now required to consider the adoption of appropriate control measures utilizing “best available control technology” in order to reduce public exposure to ETS in outdoor air to the “lowest level achievable.” In addition, in June 2006, the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (“OEHHA”) listed ETS as a contaminant known to the State of California to cause reproductive toxicity. Consequently, under California Proposition 65, businesses employing 10 or more persons must, by June 9, 2007, post warning signs in certain areas stating that ETS is known to the State of California to be a reproductive toxicant.

It is the policy of PM USA and PMI to support a single, consistent public health message on the health effects of cigarette smoking in the development of diseases in smokers, smoking and addiction, and on exposure to ETS. It is also their policy to defer to the judgment of public health authorities as to the content of warnings in advertisements and on product packaging regarding the health effects of smoking, addiction and exposure to ETS.

PM USA and PMI each have established websites that include, among other things, the views of public health authorities on smoking, disease causation in smokers, addiction and ETS. These sites reflect PM USA’s and PMI’s agreement with the medical and scientific consensus that cigarette smoking is addictive, and causes lung cancer, heart disease, emphysema and other serious diseases in smokers. The websites advise smokers, and those considering smoking, to rely on the messages of public health authorities in making all smoking-related decisions. The website addresses are www.philipmorrisusa.com and www.philipmorrisinternational.com. The information on PM USA’s and PMI’s websites is not, and shall not be deemed to be, a part of this document or incorporated into any filings ALG makes with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

The WHO’s Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (“FCTC”): The FCTC entered into force on February 27, 2005. As of May 1, 2007, the FCTC had been signed by 168 countries and the EU, ratified by 145 countries and confirmed by the EU. The FCTC is the first treaty to establish a global agenda for tobacco regulation. The treaty recommends (and in certain instances, requires) signatory nations to enact legislation that would, among other things, establish specific actions to prevent youth smoking; restrict and gradually eliminate tobacco product advertising and promotion; inform the public about the health consequences of smoking and the benefits of quitting; regulate the ingredients of tobacco products; impose new package warning requirements that may include the use of pictures or graphic images; adopt measures that would eliminate cigarette smuggling and counterfeit cigarettes; restrict smoking in public places; increase cigarette taxes; adopt and implement measures that ensure that descriptive terms do not create the false impression that one brand of cigarettes is safer than another; phase out duty-free tobacco sales; and encourage litigation against tobacco product manufacturers.

Each country that ratifies the treaty must implement legislation reflecting the treaty’s provisions and principles. While not agreeing with all of the provisions of the treaty, PM USA and PMI have expressed hope that the treaty will lead to the implementation of meaningful, effective and coherent regulation of tobacco products around the world.

Reduced Cigarette Ignition Propensity Legislation: Legislation requiring cigarettes to meet reduced ignition propensity standards is being considered in many states, at the federal level and in jurisdictions outside the United States. New York State implemented ignition propensity standards in June 2004. To date, the same standards have been enacted by ten other states, effective as follows: Vermont (May 2006), California (January 2007), Oregon (April 2007), New Hampshire (October 2007), Illinois (January 2008), Massachusetts (January 2008), Kentucky (April 2008), Montana (May 2008), New Jersey (June 2008) and Utah (July 2008). Similar legislation has been enacted in Canada and took effect in October 2005. PM USA supports the

-52-

enactment of federal legislation mandating a uniform and technically feasible national standard for reduced ignition propensity cigarettes that would preempt state standards and apply to all cigarettes sold in the United States. Similarly, PMI believes that reduced ignition propensity standards should be uniform, technically feasible, and applied to all manufacturers.

Other Legislation or Governmental Initiatives: Legislative and regulatory initiatives affecting the tobacco industry have been adopted or are being considered in a number of countries and jurisdictions. In 2001, the EU adopted a directive on tobacco product regulation requiring EU Member States to implement regulations that reduce maximum permitted levels of tar, nicotine and carbon monoxide yields; require manufacturers to disclose ingredients and toxicological data; and require cigarette packs to carry health warnings covering no less than 30% of the front panel and no less than 40% of the back panel. The directive also gives Member States the option of introducing graphic warnings as of 2005; requires tar, nicotine and carbon monoxide data to cover at least 10% of the side panel; and prohibits the use of texts, names, trademarks and figurative or other signs suggesting that a particular tobacco product is less harmful than others. All 27 EU Member States have implemented the directive.

The European Commission has issued guidelines for optional graphic warnings on cigarette packaging that Member States may apply as of 2005. Graphic warning requirements have also been proposed or adopted in a number of other jurisdictions. In 2003, the EU adopted a directive prohibiting radio, press and Internet tobacco marketing and advertising, which has now been implemented in most EU Member States. Tobacco control legislation addressing the manufacture, marketing and sale of tobacco products has been proposed or adopted in numerous other jurisdictions.

In the United States in recent years, various members of federal and state governments have introduced legislation that would subject cigarettes to various regulations; restrict or eliminate the use of descriptors such as “lights” or “ultra lights;” establish educational campaigns relating to tobacco consumption or tobacco control programs, or provide additional funding for governmental tobacco control activities; further restrict the advertising of cigarettes; require additional warnings, including graphic warnings, on packages and in advertising; eliminate or reduce the tax deductibility of tobacco advertising; provide that the Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act and the Smoking Education Act not be used as a defense against liability under state statutory or common law; and allow state and local governments to restrict the sale and distribution of cigarettes. In addition, legislation and regulation inside the United States could put PMI at a disadvantage vis a vis its international competitors.

It is not possible to predict what, if any, additional legislation, regulation or other governmental action will be enacted or implemented relating to the manufacturing, advertising, sale or use of cigarettes, or the tobacco industry generally. It is possible, however, that legislation, regulation or other governmental action could be enacted or implemented in the United States and in other countries and jurisdictions that might materially affect the business, volume, results of operations and cash flows of PM USA or PMI and ultimately their parent, ALG.

Governmental Investigations: From time to time, ALG and its subsidiaries are subject to governmental investigations on a range of matters. In this regard, ALG believes that Canadian authorities are contemplating a legal proceeding based on an investigation of ALG entities relating to allegations of contraband shipments of cigarettes into Canada in the early to mid-1990s. ALG and its subsidiaries cannot predict the outcome of this investigation or whether additional investigations may be commenced.

Cooperation Agreement between PMI and the European Commission: In July 2004, PMI entered into an agreement with the European Commission (acting on behalf of the European Community) and 10 Member States of the EU that provides for broad cooperation with European law enforcement agencies on anti-contraband and anti-counterfeit efforts. To date, 26 of the 27 Member States have signed the agreement. The agreement resolves all disputes between the European Community and the Member States that signed the agreement, on the one hand, and PMI and certain affiliates, on the other hand, relating to these issues. Under the terms of the agreement, PMI will make 13 payments over 12 years. In the second quarter of 2004, PMI recorded a pre-tax charge of $250 million for the initial payment. The agreement calls for payments of approximately

-53-

$150 million on the first anniversary of the agreement (this payment was made in July 2005), approximately $100 million on the second anniversary (this payment was made in July 2006), and approximately $75 million each year thereafter for 10 years, each of which is to be adjusted based on certain variables, including PMI’s market share in the EU in the year preceding payment. PMI will record these payments as an expense in cost of sales when product is shipped. PMI is also responsible to pay the excise taxes, VAT and customs duties on qualifying product seizures of up to 90 million cigarettes and is subject to payments of five times the applicable taxes and duties if product seizures exceed 90 million cigarettes in a given year. To date, PMI's payments related to product seizures have been immaterial.

State Settlement Agreements: As discussed in Note 11, during 1997 and 1998, PM USA and other major domestic tobacco product manufacturers entered into agreements with states and various United States jurisdictions settling asserted and unasserted health care cost recovery and other claims. These settlements require PM USA to make substantial annual payments. The settlements also place numerous restrictions on PM USA’s business operations, including prohibitions and restrictions on the advertising and marketing of cigarettes. Among these are prohibitions of outdoor and transit brand advertising; payments for product placement; and free sampling (except in adult-only facilities). Restrictions are also placed on the use of brand name sponsorships and brand name non-tobacco products. The State Settlement Agreements also place prohibitions on targeting youth and the use of cartoon characters. In addition, the State Settlement Agreements require companies to affirm corporate principles directed at reducing underage use of cigarettes; impose requirements regarding lobbying activities; mandate public disclosure of certain industry documents; limit the industry’s ability to challenge certain tobacco control and underage use laws; and provide for the dissolution of certain tobacco-related organizations and place restrictions on the establishment of any replacement organizations.

Operating Results – Three Months Ended March 31, 2007

The following discussion compares tobacco operating results for the three months ended March 31, 2007, with the three months ended March 31, 2006.

	For the Three Months Ended March 31,
					Operating
	Net Revenues				Companies Income
	2007		2006		2007		2006
	(in millions)
Domestic tobacco	$	4,245	$	4,323	$	1,130	$	1,116
International tobacco		13,268		11,801		2,154		1,967
Total tobacco	$	17,513	$	16,124	$	3,284	$	3,083

Domestic tobacco. PM USA’s net revenues, which include excise taxes billed to customers, decreased $78 million (1.8%). Excluding excise taxes, net revenues decreased $23 million (0.7%) to $3.4 billion, due primarily to lower volume ($310 million), partially offset by lower wholesale promotional allowance rates and higher list prices ($284 million).

Operating companies income increased $14 million (1.3%), due primarily to lower wholesale promotional allowance rates and decreased promotional spending, net of higher ongoing resolution costs ($134 million) and lower marketing, administration and research costs ($92 million, net of higher spending on new products), largely offset by lower volume ($210 million).

PM USA’s shipment volume was 40.6 billion units, a decrease of 6.2% or 2.7 billion units. PM USA estimates that overall industry weakness accounted for about 2.0 billion units of this shipment decline. The balance was due primarily to higher wholesaler inventory depletions of PM USA brands, timing of promotions and consumer pantry purchases in advance of the January 1, 2007 excise tax increase in Texas. Adjusting for these factors, PM USA estimates its volume decline would have been approximately 5%. In the premium segment, PM USA’s shipment volume decreased 6.2%. Marlboro shipment volume decreased 2.1 billion units (6.0%) to 33.3 billion units. In the discount segment, PM USA’s shipment volume also decreased with Basic shipment volume down 7.5% to 3.2 billion units.

-54-

The following table summarizes PM USA’s retail share performance, based on data from the IRI/Capstone Total Retail Panel, which is a tracking service that uses a sample of stores to project market share performance in retail stores selling cigarettes. This panel was not designed to capture sales through other channels, including Internet and direct mail:

	For the Three Months Ended
	March 31,
	2007			2006
Marlboro		40.8	%		40.4	%
Parliament		1.9			1.8
Virginia Slims		2.2			2.3
Basic		4.1			4.2
Focus on Four Brands		49.0			48.7
Other		1.4			1.7
Total PM USA		50.4	%		50.4	%

PM USA estimates that total cigarette industry volume declined between 4% and 5% during the first quarter of 2007, a rate significantly higher than the long-term underlying trend. The accelerated rate of decline was driven by a number of price-related factors, including reductions in manufacturers’ off-invoice allowances and increases in manufacturers’ list prices related to stepped-up resolution payments, as well as increased state excise taxes, primarily in Texas. PM USA estimates that, as the year unfolds, the industry decline will moderate, and that for the full year, the total industry volume decline will be about 3% to 4%.

Effective December 18, 2006, PM USA reduced its wholesale promotional allowance on its Focus on Four brands by $1.00 per carton, from $5.00 to $4.00 and increased the price of its other brands by $5.00 per thousand cigarettes or $1.00 per carton. Effective February 12, 2007, PM USA increased the price of its other brands by $9.95 per thousand cigarettes or $1.99 per carton.

PM USA cannot predict future long-term changes or rates of change in domestic tobacco industry volume, the relative sizes of the premium and discount segments or its shipment or retail market share; however, it believes that its results may be materially adversely affected by the other items discussed under the caption “Tobacco–Business Environment.”

International tobacco. International tobacco net revenues, which include excise taxes billed to customers, increased $1.5 billion (12.4%). Excluding excise taxes, net revenues increased $439 million (8.6%) to $5.5 billion, due primarily to favorable currency ($274 million), price increases ($190 million) and the impact of acquisitions ($16 million), partially offset by unfavorable volume/mix ($41 million).

Operating companies income increased $187 million (9.5%), due primarily to price increases, net of higher costs ($154 million), favorable currency ($96 million), the Italian antitrust charge in 2006 ($61 million) and lower fixed manufacturing costs ($19 million), partially offset by higher pre-tax charges for asset impairment and exit costs ($60 million), unfavorable volume/mix ($42 million), higher marketing, administration and research costs ($31 million, including $30 million for a distributor termination in Indonesia) and the impact of divestitures ($14 million).

PMI’s cigarette volume of 213.3 billion units increased 3.1 billion units (1.5%), due primarily to an acquisition in Pakistan in March 2007 and higher volume in Argentina, Egypt, Indonesia, Italy, Korea, North Africa, Poland and Ukraine, partially offset by lower volume in Japan and Russia. Excluding the acquisition in Pakistan, PMI’s cigarette shipment volume was essentially flat. PMI’s total tobacco volume, which included 1.9 billion cigarette equivalent units of other tobacco products, grew 1.3%. Excluding the acquisition in Pakistan, PMI’s total tobacco volume was essentially flat.

-55-

PMI achieved market share gains in a number of important markets, including Argentina, Australia, Austria, Egypt, Finland, France, Greece, Hong Kong, Hungary, Indonesia, Italy, Korea, Mexico, the Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Serbia, Singapore, Sweden, Ukraine and the United Kingdom.

Volume for Marlboro cigarettes decreased 2.8%, due primarily to inventory depletions in Japan and market contraction in the vending segment in Germany, partially offset by higher volume in Italy, Russia, North Africa, worldwide duty-free and Korea. Marlboro market share increased in many important markets, including Brazil, France, Greece, Hong Kong, Hungary, Italy, Kazakhstan, Korea, Kuwait, the Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Serbia, Singapore, Ukraine and the United Kingdom.

European Union. In the European Union, PMI’s cigarette volume increased 3.4%, due largely to gains in the Czech Republic, Hungary, Italy and Poland, partially offset by declines in France, Germany and the United Kingdom. Cigarette market share in the European Union rose 0.2 share points to 39.5%, with strong performances in France, Hungary, Italy and Poland, largely offset by declines in the Czech Republic, Germany and Spain.

In Italy, the total cigarette market was down 0.5% versus the year-ago quarter. PMI’s cigarette shipment volume increased 7.7%, due to favorable inventory movement. PMI’s market share in Italy increased 0.9 share points to 54.2%, driven by Marlboro, Chesterfield and Diana.

In Germany, PMI’s total tobacco volume (which includes other tobacco products) decreased 6.8%, due mainly to lower other tobacco products volume. PMI’s cigarette volume declined 3.5%. The total cigarette market in Germany grew slightly, due to growth of the low-price segment. However, PMI’s market share declined 0.9 share points to 36.2%, largely attributable to the contraction of industry sales through the vending channel. Total industry sales through the vending channel declined 38% in the first quarter of 2007, due to a reduction in the number of vending machines as a result of new regulations that require electronic age verification. Compliance with these regulations resulted in the elimination of many older-generation vending machines, and access to the remaining machines has become more complex and less convenient. As a consequence, even though PMI’s total cigarette share in vending and in other trade channels grew 0.2 share points and 0.6 share points, respectively, its overall share declined. Marlboro share declined 3.5 share points, partially offset by a gain of 2.6 share points for L&M. Marlboro’s share declined to 25.9%, reflecting consumer down-trading to low-price brands and losses in the vending machine channel. With a 42.1% share of the vending channel, Marlboro was disproportionately impacted by the decline in industry sales through this channel.

In Spain, the total cigarette market and PMI’s shipment volume were essentially flat. PMI’s market share declined 1.0 share point to 31.7%, due mainly to Marlboro, which suffered from a difficult comparison to the prior-year period. However, PMI experienced improvement in its profitability in Spain during the first quarter of 2007.

In France, shipment volume decreased 2.5%, due mainly to unfavorable timing of shipments. Market share increased 0.7 share points to 43.3%, driven by Marlboro and the Philip Morris brand.

In Poland, PMI’s shipment volume was up 8.3% and market share increased 2.3 share points to 40.8%, driven mainly by Marlboro and L&M, partially offset by the continuing decline of the low-price 70mm segment.

In the Czech Republic, PMI’s shipment volume was up 21.1%, due to trade purchases prior to the March 2007 excise tax increase. Market share was lower, due to competitive activity.

Eastern Europe, Middle East and Africa. In Eastern Europe, Middle East and Africa, volume decreased 0.5%, driven by declines in Russia and Turkey, partially offset by gains in Algeria, Egypt and Ukraine. In Russia, shipments were down 6.6% and share declined 0.2 share points to 26.6%, due largely to L&M and local low-price brands, partially offset by higher sales and market share of higher-margin international brands, Marlboro, Parliament and Chesterfield. In Turkey, shipments declined 3.5% and market share declined 2.1 share points to 41.4%, due to the February 2007 tax-driven retail price increase. In Ukraine, shipments grew 6.4% and share

-56-

rose 0.5 share points to 33.2%, driven by continued consumer up-trading to premium brands, particularly Marlboro and Chesterfield. In Egypt, improved economic conditions and increased tourism continued to fuel the growth of the total cigarette industry and premium brands. PMI’s shipments rose 28.2% and share advanced 1.0 share point to 11.4%, driven by Marlboro and L&M.

Asia. In Asia, volume increased 0.4%, reflecting the acquisition in Pakistan. Excluding this acquisition, volume in Asia was down 5.2%, due primarily to lower volume in Japan, partially offset by gains in Indonesia and Korea. In Japan, the total market declined 5.7%, driven by the July 1, 2006 tax-driven price increase. Market share in Japan remained unchanged at 24.7%. PMI’s shipments in Japan were down 17.5%, due to the effects of the 2006 price increase and an unfavorable comparison with the prior year quarter, which included distributor purchases in advance of the 2006 price increase, and higher inventories at year-end 2006. In Indonesia, PMI shipment volume rose 5.8% and market share increased 0.5 share points to 28.4%, led by A Hijau. In Korea, shipments increased 25.8%, reflecting the timing of shipments and the launch of Marlboro Filter Plus in the fourth quarter of 2006.

Latin America. In Latin America, volume increased 0.3%, driven by gains in Argentina, partially offset by the timing of shipments in Mexico. In Argentina, the total market was up 2.3%, while PMI shipments grew 9.8% and share was up 4.7 share points, due mainly to the Philip Morris brand. In Mexico, PMI shipments declined 6.3%, reflecting increased trade purchases in the fourth quarter of 2006 ahead of the 2007 tax increase. However, market share rose 0.7 share points to 62.3%, driven by the launch of Delicados Supremos in January 2007 and the continued growth of Benson & Hedges.

Financial Services

Business Environment

In 2003, PMCC shifted its strategic focus and is no longer making new investments but is instead focused on managing its existing portfolio of finance assets in order to maximize gains and generate cash flow from asset sales and related activities. Accordingly, PMCC’s operating companies income will fluctuate over time as investments mature or are sold. During the first quarter of 2007 and 2006, PMCC received proceeds from asset sales and maturities of $199 million and $170 million, respectively, and recorded gains of $137 million and $58 million, respectively, in operating companies income.

Included in the proceeds for 2007 was PMCC’s sale of its ownership interest in its leveraged lease investments in certain aircraft during the first quarter of 2007. The proceeds received represented a partial recovery of amounts previously provided for in the allowance for losses. The sales resulted in additional operating companies income of $129 million in the first quarter of 2007. The remaining finance asset balance was written-off against the allowance for losses.

Among its leasing activities, PMCC leases a number of aircraft, predominantly to major U.S. passenger carriers. At March 31, 2007, $1.6 billion of PMCC’s finance asset balance related to aircraft. One of PMCC’s aircraft lessees, Northwest Airlines, Inc. (“Northwest”), is currently under bankruptcy protection. In addition, PMCC leases one natural gas-fired power plant to an indirect subsidiary of Calpine Corporation (“Calpine”). Calpine, which has guaranteed the lease, is currently operating under bankruptcy protection. PMCC does not record income on leases in bankruptcy. Should a lease rejection or foreclosure occur, it would result in the write-off of the finance asset balance against PMCC’s allowance for losses and the acceleration of deferred tax payments on these leases. At March 31, 2007, PMCC’s finance asset balances for these leases were as follows:

• Northwest – PMCC has remaining leveraged leases for three Airbus A-320 aircraft totaling $32 million, of which a portion of the outstanding finance asset balance has been provided for in the allowance for losses.

-57-

• Calpine – PMCC’s leveraged lease exposure for one 750 megawatt (“MW”) natural gas-fired power plant (located in Pasadena, Texas) was $60 million. The lessee (an affiliate of Calpine) was not included as part of the bankruptcy filing of Calpine. In addition, PMCC’s leases for two 265 MW natural gas-fired power plants (located in Tiverton, Rhode Island, and Rumford, Maine), which were part of the bankruptcy filing, were rejected during 2006. It is anticipated that at some point during the Calpine bankruptcy proceedings, PMCC’s interest in these plants will be foreclosed upon by the lenders under the leveraged leases and accordingly it has been fully reserved. Based on PMCC’s assessment of the prospect for recovery on the Pasadena plant, a portion of the outstanding finance asset balance has been provided for in the allowance for losses.

At March 31, 2007, PMCC’s allowance for losses was $223 million. During the first quarter of 2007, PMCC decreased its allowance for losses by $257 million related to the sale of its ownership interest in certain aircraft as discussed above.

As discussed further in Note 12. Income Taxes, the IRS has disallowed benefits pertaining to several PMCC leverage lease transactions for the years 1996 through 1999.

Operating Results

	2007		2006
	(in millions)
Net revenues:
Quarter ended March 31,	$	43	$	108
Operating companies income:
Quarter ended March 31,	$	160	$	96

PMCC’s net revenues for the quarter ended March 31, 2007 decreased $65 million (60.2%) from the comparable period in 2006, due primarily to lower gains from asset management activity and lower lease revenues due to lower investment balances. PMCC’s operating companies income for the quarter ended March 31, 2007 increased $64 million (66.7%) from the quarter ended March 31, 2006, due primarily to a cash recovery of $129 million at PMCC from assets which had been previously written down, partially offset by lower asset management gains and lower revenues.

Financial Review

Net Cash Used In Operating Activities, Continuing Operations

During the first quarter of 2007, net cash used in operating activities on a continuing operations basis was $665 million compared with $1.2 billion during the comparable 2006 period. The decrease in cash used in operating activities was due primarily to higher earnings from continuing operations (after excluding the non-cash reversal of income tax reserves in 2006), lower pension plan contributions and the 2006 payment related to the escrow bond deposit for the Price domestic tobacco case, partially offset by a higher use of cash to fund working capital. The higher use of working capital was due primarily to the timing of excise tax payments and shipments at PMI, partially offset by inventory build up at PMI in the first quarter of 2006 in anticipation of excise tax increases.

Net Cash Used in Investing Activities, Continuing Operations

One element of PMI’s growth strategy is to strengthen its brand portfolio and/or expand its geographic reach through active programs of selective acquisitions. PM USA from time to time considers acquisitions as part of its adjacency strategy.

-58-

During the first quarter of 2007, net cash used by investing activities on a continuing operations basis was $412 million, compared with $3 million during the first quarter of 2006. The increase in cash used was due primarily to PMI’s purchase of a Pakistan cigarette manufacturer in the first quarter of 2007.

Net Cash Used in Financing Activities, Continuing Operations

During the first quarter of 2007, net cash used in financing activities on a continuing operations basis was $1.5 billion, compared with $2.6 billion during the first quarter of 2006. The decrease in cash used in financing activities was due primarily to the repayment of debt in the first quarter of 2006, as compared with a net issuance of debt in the first quarter of 2007.

Debt and Liquidity

Credit Ratings – At March 31, 2007, ALG’s debt ratings by major credit rating agencies were as follows:

	Short-term	Long-term	Outlook
Moody’s Standard & Poor’s Fitch	P-2 A-2 F-2	Baa1  BBB   BBB+	Stable     Positive  Stable

ALG’s credit quality, measured by 5 year credit default swaps, has improved over the past year with swap levels which approximate that of Single-A rated issuers.

Credit Lines – ALG and PMI maintain separate revolving credit facilities. ALG intends to use its revolving credit facilities to support the issuance of commercial paper.

The purchase price of the Sampoerna acquisition was primarily financed through a euro 4.5 billion bank credit facility arranged for PMI and its subsidiaries in May 2005, consisting of a euro 2.5 billion three-year term loan facility (which, through repayments has been reduced to euro 1.5 billion) and a euro 2.0 billion five-year revolving credit facility. These facilities, which are not guaranteed by ALG, require PMI to maintain an earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization (“EBITDA”) to interest ratio of not less than 3.5 to 1.0. At March 31, 2007, PMI’s ratio calculated in accordance with the agreements was 29.5 to 1.0.

In March 2007, ALG negotiated a new 364-day revolving credit facility in the amount of $1.0 billion, which expires on March 27, 2008, and replaces ALG’s 364-day facility which was due to mature on March 30, 2007. In addition, ALG maintains a multi-year credit facility in the amount of $4.0 billion, which expires in April 2010. The ALG facilities require the maintenance of an earnings to fixed charges ratio, as defined by the agreements, of not less than 2.5 to 1.0. At March 31, 2007, the ratio calculated in accordance with the agreements was 17.5 to 1.0.

ALG and PMI expect to continue to meet their respective covenants. These facilities do not include any credit rating triggers or any provisions that could require the posting of collateral. The multi-year facilities enable the respective companies to reclassify short-term debt on a long-term basis.

-59-

At March 31, 2007, credit lines for ALG and PMI, and the related activity, were as follows (in billions of dollars):

ALG	March 31, 2007
					Commercial
	Credit		Amount		Paper		Lines
Type	Lines		Drawn		Outstanding		Available
364-day	$	1.0	$	–	$	–	$	1.0
Multi-year		4.0						4.0
	$	5.0	$	–	$	–	$	5.0
PMI	March 31, 2007
	Credit		Amount		Lines
Type	Lines		Drawn		Available
euro 2.5 billion, 3-year term loan	$	2.0	$	2.0	$	–
euro 2.0 billion, 5-year revolving credit		2.6		0.5		2.1
	$	4.6	$	2.5	$	2.1

In addition to the above, certain international subsidiaries of PMI maintain credit lines to meet their respective working capital needs. These credit lines, which amounted to approximately $2.2 billion are for the sole use of these international businesses. Borrowings on these lines amounted to approximately $0.4 billion at March 31, 2007 and December 31, 2006, respectively.

Debt – Altria Group, Inc.’s total debt (consumer products and financial services) was $8.5 billion at March 31, 2007 and December 31, 2006. Total consumer products debt was $7.4 billion at March 31, 2007 and December 31, 2006. Total consumer products debt includes PMI third-party debt of $3.3 billion and $2.8 billion at March 31, 2007 and December 31, 2006, respectively. At March 31, 2007 and December 31, 2006 (after giving effect to the Kraft spin-off), Altria Group, Inc.’s ratio of consumer products debt to total equity was 0.51 and 0.58, respectively. The ratio of total debt to total equity was 0.59 and 0.67 at March 31, 2007 and December 31, 2006 (after giving effect to the Kraft spin-off), respectively.

ALG does not guarantee the debt of PMI.

Guarantees – As discussed in Note 11, at March 31, 2007, Altria Group, Inc.’s third-party guarantees, which are primarily related to excise taxes and divestiture activities, approximated $283 million, of which $278 million have no specified expiration dates. The remainder expire through 2010, with none expiring through March 31, 2008. Altria Group, Inc. is required to perform under these guarantees in the event that a third party fails to make contractual payments or achieve performance measures. Altria Group, Inc. has a liability of $22 million on its condensed consolidated balance sheet at March 31, 2007, relating to these guarantees. In the ordinary course of business, certain subsidiaries of ALG have agreed to indemnify a limited number of third parties in the event of future litigation. At March 31, 2007, subsidiaries of ALG were also contingently liable for $2.4 billion of guarantees related to their own performance, consisting of the following:

• $2.1 billion of guarantees of excise tax and import duties related primarily to international shipments of tobacco products. In these agreements, financial institutions provide guarantees of tax payments to the respective governments. PMI then issues guarantees to the respective financial institutions for the payment

-60-

of the taxes. These are revolving facilities that are integral to the shipment of tobacco products in international markets, and the underlying taxes payable are recorded on Altria Group, Inc.’s condensed consolidated balance sheet.

• $0.3 billion of other guarantees related to the tobacco businesses.

Although Altria Group, Inc.’s guarantees of its own performance are frequently short-term in nature, the short-term guarantees are expected to be replaced, upon expiration, with similar guarantees of similar amounts. These items have not had, and are not expected to have, a significant impact on Altria Group, Inc.’s liquidity.

Payments Under State Settlement and Other Tobacco Agreements – As discussed previously and in Note 11, PM USA has entered into State Settlement Agreements with the states and territories of the United States and also entered into a trust agreement to provide certain aid to U.S. tobacco growers and quota holders, but PM USA’s obligations under this trust have now been eliminated by the obligations imposed on PM USA by FETRA. During 2004, PMI entered into a cooperation agreement with the European Community. Each of these agreements calls for payments that are based on variable factors, such as cigarette volume, market shares and inflation. PM USA and PMI account for the cost of these agreements as a component of cost of sales as product is shipped.

As a result of these agreements and the enactment of FETRA, PM USA and PMI recorded the following amounts in cost of sales (in millions):

	For the Three Months Ended
	March 31,
	2007		2006
PM USA	$	1,256	$	1,179
PMI		23		26
Total	$	1,279	$	1,205

Based on current agreements and current estimates of volume and market share, the estimated amounts that PM USA and PMI may charge to cost of sales under these agreements will be approximately as follows (in billions):

	PM USA			PMI			Total
2007	$	5.6		$	0.1		$	5.7
2008		5.7			0.1			5.8
2009		5.7			0.1			5.8
2010		5.8			0.1			5.9
2011		5.8			0.1			5.9
2012 to 2016	5.9		annually	0.1		annually	6.0		annually
Thereafter	6.0		annually				6.0		annually

The estimated amounts charged to cost of sales in each of the years above would generally be paid in the following year. As previously stated, the payments due under the terms of these agreements are subject to adjustment for several factors, including cigarette volume, inflation and certain contingent events and, in general, are allocated based on each manufacturer’s market share. The amounts shown in the table above are estimates, and actual amounts will differ as underlying assumptions differ from actual future results. See Note 11. Contingencies for a discussion of proceedings that may result in a downward adjustment of amounts paid under State Settlement Agreements for the years 2003 and 2004.

Litigation Escrow Deposits – As discussed in Note 11, in connection with obtaining a stay of execution in the Engle class action, PM USA placed $1.2 billion into an interest-bearing escrow account. The $1.2 billion escrow account and a deposit of $100 million related to the bonding requirement are included in the March 31, 2007 and December 31, 2006 condensed consolidated balance sheets as other assets. As discussed in Note 11, in July 2006, the Florida Supreme Court issued its ruling in the Engle case. The escrow and deposit amounts

-61-

will be returned to PM USA subject to and upon the completion of review of the judgment. Interest income on the $1.2 billion escrow account is paid to PM USA quarterly and is being recorded as earned in interest and other debt expense, net, in the condensed consolidated statements of earnings.

Also, as discussed in Note 11, in June 2006 under the order of the Illinois Supreme Court, the cash deposits of approximately $2.2 billion related to the Price case were returned to PM USA, and PM USA’s obligations to deposit further cash payments were terminated. A pre-existing 7.0%, $6 billion long-term note from ALG to PM USA that was placed in escrow pending the outcome of plaintiffs’ petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Supreme Court was returned to PM USA in December 2006, following the Supreme Court’s denial of the petition. Since this note is the result of an intercompany financing arrangement, it does not appear on the condensed consolidated balance sheet of Altria Group, Inc.

With respect to certain adverse verdicts and judicial decisions currently on appeal, other than the Engle case discussed above, as of March 31, 2007, PM USA has posted various forms of security totaling approximately $193 million, the majority of which have been collateralized with cash deposits, to obtain stays of judgments pending appeals. These cash deposits are included in other assets on the condensed consolidated balance sheets.

Although litigation is subject to uncertainty and could result in material adverse consequences for Altria Group, Inc.’s financial condition, cash flows or results of operations in a particular fiscal quarter or fiscal year, management believes the litigation environment has substantially improved and expects Altria Group, Inc.’s cash flow from operations, together with existing credit facilities, to provide sufficient liquidity to meet the ongoing needs of the business.

Leases – PMCC’s investment in leases is included in the line item finance assets, net, on the condensed consolidated balance sheets as of March 31, 2007 and December 31, 2006. At March 31, 2007, PMCC’s net finance receivable of $6.2 billion in leveraged leases, which is included in the line item on Altria Group, Inc.’s condensed consolidated balance sheet of finance assets, net, consists of rents receivable ($21.1 billion) and the residual value of assets under lease ($1.6 billion), reduced by third-party nonrecourse debt ($13.9 billion) and unearned income ($2.6 billion). The payment of the nonrecourse debt is collateralized by lease payments receivable and the leased property, and is nonrecourse to the general assets of PMCC. As required by accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (“U.S. GAAP”), the third-party nonrecourse debt has been offset against the related rents receivable and has been presented on a net basis within the line item finance assets, net, in Altria Group, Inc.’s condensed consolidated balance sheets. Finance assets, net, at March 31, 2007, also include net finance receivables for direct finance leases ($0.5 billion) and an allowance for losses ($0.2 billion).

Equity and Dividends

As discussed in Note 1. Basis of Presentation and Kraft Spin-Off, on March 30, 2007, Altria Group, Inc. spun-off all of its remaining interest (88.9%) in Kraft on a pro rata basis to Altria Group, Inc. stockholders of record as of the close of business on March 16, 2007 in a tax-free distribution. The distribution resulted in a net decrease to Altria Group, Inc.’s stockholders’ equity of $27.4 billion on March 30, 2007.

As discussed in Note 8. Stock Plans, in January 2007, Altria Group, Inc. issued 1.7 million rights to receive shares of stock to eligible U.S.-based and non-U.S. employees. Restrictions on these rights lapse in the first quarter of 2010. The market value per right was $87.36 on the date of grant. Recipients of these Altria Group, Inc. stock rights did not receive restricted stock or stock rights of Kraft upon the Kraft spin-off. Rather, they received 0.6 million additional stock rights of Altria Group, Inc. to preserve the intrinsic value of the original award.

Dividends paid in the first quarters of 2007 and 2006 were $1.8 billion and $1.7 billion, respectively, an increase of 8.3%, primarily reflecting a higher dividend rate and a greater number of shares outstanding in 2007. During the third quarter of 2006, Altria Group, Inc.’s Board of Directors approved a 7.5% increase in the

-62-

quarterly dividend rate to $0.86 per share. Altria Group, Inc. has announced its intention to adjust its quarterly dividend rate so that its stockholders who retained their Altria Group, Inc. and Kraft shares will receive in the aggregate the same dividend rate as before the transaction.

Market Risk

ALG’s subsidiaries operate globally, with manufacturing and sales facilities in various locations around the world. ALG and its subsidiaries utilize certain financial instruments to manage foreign currency exposures. Derivative financial instruments are used by ALG and its subsidiaries, principally to reduce exposures to market risks resulting from fluctuations in foreign exchange rates by creating offsetting exposures. Altria Group, Inc. is not a party to leveraged derivatives and, by policy, does not use derivative financial instruments for speculative purposes.

A substantial portion of Altria Group, Inc.’s derivative financial instruments are effective as hedges. Hedging activity affected accumulated other comprehensive earnings (losses), net of income taxes, as follows:

	For the Three Months Ended
	March 31,
	2007			2006
	(in millions)
Gain at beginning of period	$	13		$	24
Derivative gains transferred to earnings		(24	)		(6	)
Change in fair value		14			18
Kraft spin-off		2
Gain as of March 31	$	5		$	36

The fair value of all derivative financial instruments has been calculated based on market quotes.

Foreign exchange rates. Altria Group, Inc. uses forward foreign exchange contracts, foreign currency swaps and foreign currency options to mitigate its exposure to changes in exchange rates from third-party and intercompany actual and forecasted transactions. The primary currencies to which Altria Group, Inc. is exposed include the Japanese yen, Swiss franc and the euro. At March 31, 2007 and December 31, 2006, Altria Group, Inc. had contracts with aggregate notional amounts of $3.8 billion and $3.2 billion, respectively.

In addition, Altria Group, Inc. uses foreign currency swaps to mitigate its exposure to changes in exchange rates related to foreign currency denominated debt. These swaps typically convert fixed-rate foreign currency denominated debt to fixed-rate debt denominated in the functional currency of the borrowing entity. These swaps are accounted for as cash flow hedges. The unrealized gain (loss) relating to foreign currency swap agreements that do not qualify for hedge accounting treatment under U.S. GAAP was insignificant as of March 31, 2007 and December 31, 2006. At March 31, 2007 and December 31, 2006, the notional amounts of foreign currency swap agreements aggregated $1.4 billion.

Altria Group, Inc. also designates certain foreign currency denominated debt as net investment hedges of foreign operations. During the quarter ended March 31, 2007 and 2006, these hedges of net investments resulted in gains, net of income taxes of $16 million, and losses, net of income taxes, of $3 million, respectively, and were reported as a component of accumulated other comprehensive earnings (losses) within currency translation adjustments.

-63-

New Accounting Standard

See Note 13 to the Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements for a discussion of a new accounting standard.

Contingencies

See Note 11 to the Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements for a discussion of contingencies.

Cautionary Factors That May Affect Future Results

Forward-Looking and Cautionary Statements

We^* may from time to time make written or oral forward-looking statements, including statements contained in filings with the SEC, in reports to stockholders and in press releases and investor webcasts. You can identify these forward-looking statements by use of words such as “strategy,” “expects,” “continues,” “plans,” “anticipates,” “believes,” “will,” “estimates,” “intends,” “projects,” “goals,” “targets” and other words of similar meaning. You can also identify them by the fact that they do not relate strictly to historical or current facts.

We cannot guarantee that any forward-looking statement will be realized, although we believe we have been prudent in our plans and assumptions. Achievement of future results is subject to risks, uncertainties and inaccurate assumptions. Should known or unknown risks or uncertainties materialize, or should underlying assumptions prove inaccurate, actual results could vary materially from those anticipated, estimated or projected. Investors should bear this in mind as they consider forward-looking statements and whether to invest in or remain invested in Altria Group, Inc.’s securities. In connection with the “safe harbor” provisions of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, we are identifying important factors that, individually or in the aggregate, could cause actual results and outcomes to differ materially from those contained in any forward-looking statements made by us; any such statement is qualified by reference to the following cautionary statements. We elaborate on these and other risks we face throughout this document, particularly in the “Business Environment” sections preceding our discussion of operating results of our subsidiaries’ businesses. You should understand that it is not possible to predict or identify all risk factors. Consequently, you should not consider the following to be a complete discussion of all potential risks or uncertainties. We do not undertake to update any forward-looking statement that we may make from time to time.

Tobacco-Related Litigation.  There is substantial litigation related to tobacco products in the United States and certain foreign jurisdictions. It is possible that there could be adverse developments in pending cases. An unfavorable outcome or settlement of pending tobacco-related litigation could encourage the commencement of additional litigation. 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 42 states now limit the dollar amount of bonds or require no bond at all.

It is possible that Altria Group, Inc.’s consolidated results of operations, cash flows or financial position could be materially affected in a particular fiscal quarter or fiscal year by an unfavorable outcome or settlement of certain pending litigation. Nevertheless, although litigation is subject to uncertainty, management believes the litigation environment has substantially improved. ALG 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 a number of valid defenses to the litigation pending against it, as well as valid bases for appeal of adverse verdicts against it. All such cases are, and will continue to be, vigorously defended. However, ALG and its subsidiaries may enter into

^* This section uses the terms “we,” “our” and “us” when it is not necessary to distinguish among ALG and its various operating subsidiaries or when any distinction is clear from the context.

-64-

settlement discussions in particular cases if they believe it is in the best interests of ALG’s stockholders to do so. Please see Note 11 for a discussion of pending tobacco-related litigation.

Tobacco Control Action in the Public and Private Sectors.  Our tobacco subsidiaries face significant governmental action aimed at reducing the incidence of smoking and seeking to hold us responsible for the adverse health effects associated with both smoking and exposure to environmental tobacco smoke. Governmental actions, combined with the diminishing social acceptance of smoking and private actions to restrict smoking, have resulted in reduced industry volume, and we expect this decline to continue.

Excise Taxes.  Cigarettes are subject to substantial excise taxes in the United States and to substantial taxation abroad. Significant increases in cigarette-related taxes and fees have been proposed or enacted and are likely to continue to be proposed or enacted within the United States, the EU and in other foreign jurisdictions. In addition, in certain jurisdictions, PMI’s products are subject to discriminatory tax structures, and inconsistent rulings and interpretations on complex methodologies to determine excise and other tax burdens.

Tax increases and discriminatory tax structures are expected to continue to have an adverse impact on sales of cigarettes by our tobacco subsidiaries, due to lower consumption levels and to a shift in consumer purchases from the premium to the non-premium or discount segments or to other low-priced or low-taxed tobacco products or to counterfeit or contraband products.

Minimum Retail Selling Price Laws.  Several EU Member States have enacted laws establishing a minimum retail selling price for cigarettes and, in some cases, other tobacco products. The European Commission has commenced proceedings against these Member States, claiming that minimum retail selling price systems infringe EU law. If the European Commission’s infringement actions are successful, they could adversely impact excise tax levels and/or price gaps in those markets.

Increased Competition in the Domestic Tobacco Market.  Settlements of certain tobacco litigation in the United States have resulted in substantial cigarette price increases. PM USA faces competition from lowest priced brands sold by certain domestic and foreign manufacturers that have cost advantages because they are not parties to these settlements. These manufacturers may fail to comply with related state escrow legislation or may avoid escrow deposit obligations on the majority of their sales by concentrating on certain states where escrow deposits are not required or are required on fewer than all such manufacturers’ cigarettes sold in such states. Additional competition has resulted from diversion into the United States market of cigarettes intended for sale outside the United States, the sale of counterfeit cigarettes by third parties, the sale of cigarettes by third parties over the Internet and by other means designed to avoid collection of applicable taxes, and increased imports of foreign lowest priced brands.

Counterfeit Cigarettes in International Markets.  Large quantities of counterfeit cigarettes are sold in the international market. PMI believes that Marlboro is the most heavily counterfeited international brand. PMI cannot quantify the amount of revenue it loses as a result of this activity.

Governmental Investigations.  From time to time, ALG and its tobacco subsidiaries are subject to governmental investigations on a range of matters. Ongoing investigations include allegations of contraband shipments of cigarettes and allegations of unlawful pricing activities within certain international markets. We cannot predict the outcome of those investigations or whether additional investigations may be commenced, and it is possible that our business could be materially affected by an unfavorable outcome of pending or future investigations.

New Tobacco Product Technologies.  Our tobacco subsidiaries continue to seek ways to develop and to commercialize new product technologies that have the objective of reducing constituents in tobacco smoke identified by public health authorities as harmful while continuing to offer adult smokers products that meet their taste expectations. We cannot guarantee that our tobacco subsidiaries will succeed in these efforts. If they do not succeed, but one or more of their competitors do, our tobacco subsidiaries may be at a competitive disadvantage.

-65-

PM USA and PMI have adjacency growth strategies involving potential moves into complementary tobacco or tobacco-related products or processes. We cannot guarantee that these strategies, or any products introduced in connection with these strategies, will be successful.

Foreign Currency.  Our international tobacco subsidiary conducts its business in local currency and, for purposes of financial reporting, its results are translated into U.S. dollars based on average exchange rates prevailing during a reporting period. During times of a strengthening U.S. dollar, our reported net revenues and operating income will be reduced because the local currency will translate into fewer U.S. dollars.

Competition and Economic Downturns.  Each of our tobacco subsidiaries is subject to intense competition, changes in consumer preferences and local economic conditions. To be successful, they must continue to:

• promote brand equity successfully;

• anticipate and respond to new consumer trends;

• develop new products and markets and to broaden brand portfolios in order to compete effectively with lower priced products; and

• improve productivity.

The willingness of consumers to purchase premium cigarette brands depends in part on local economic conditions. In periods of economic uncertainty, consumers tend to purchase more private label and other economy brands, and the volume of our consumer products subsidiaries could suffer accordingly.

Our finance subsidiary, PMCC, holds investments in finance leases, principally in transportation (including aircraft), power generation and manufacturing equipment and facilities. Its lessees are also subject to intense competition and economic conditions. If counterparties to PMCC’s leases fail to manage through difficult economic and competitive conditions, PMCC may have to increase its allowance for losses, which would adversely affect our profitability.

Strengthening Brand Portfolios Through Acquisitions.  One element of PMI’s growth strategy is to strengthen its brand portfolio and/or expand its geographic reach through active programs of selective acquisitions. PM USA from time to time considers acquisitions as part of its adjacency strategy. Acquisition opportunities are limited, and acquisitions present risks of failing to achieve efficient and effective integration, strategic objectives and anticipated revenue improvements and cost savings. There can be no assurance that we will be able to continue to acquire attractive businesses on favorable terms or that all future acquisitions will be quickly accretive to earnings.

Asset Impairment.  We periodically calculate the fair value of our goodwill and intangible assets to test for impairment. This calculation may be affected by the market conditions noted above, as well as interest rates and general economic conditions. If an impairment is determined to exist, we will incur impairment losses, which will reduce our earnings.

IRS Challenges to PMCC Leases.  The IRS concluded its examination of Altria Group, Inc.’s consolidated tax returns for the years 1996 through 1999, and issued a final Revenue Agent’s Report (“RAR”) on March 15, 2006. The RAR disallowed benefits pertaining to certain PMCC leveraged lease transactions for the years 1996 through 1999. Altria Group, Inc. has agreed with all conclusions of the RAR, with the exception of the disallowance of benefits pertaining to several PMCC leveraged lease transactions for the years 1996 through 1999. PMCC will continue to assert its position regarding these leveraged lease transactions and contest approximately $150 million of tax and net interest assessed and paid with regard to them. The IRS may in the future challenge and disallow more of PMCC’s leveraged leases based on recent Revenue Rulings, a recent IRS Notice and subsequent case law addressing specific types of leveraged leases (lease-in/lease-out (“LILO”) and sale-in/lease-out (“SILO”) transactions). PMCC believes that the position and supporting case law described in

-66-

the RAR, Revenue Rulings and the IRS Notice are incorrectly applied to PMCC’s transactions and that its leveraged leases are factually and legally distinguishable in material respects from the IRS’s position. PMCC and ALG intend to vigorously defend against any challenges based on that position through litigation. In this regard, on October 16, 2006, PMCC filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York to claim refunds for a portion of these tax payments and associated interest. However, should PMCC’s position not be upheld, PMCC may have to accelerate the payment of significant amounts of federal income tax and significantly lower its earnings to reflect the recalculation of the income from the affected leveraged leases, which could have a material effect on the earnings and cash flows of Altria Group, Inc. in a particular fiscal quarter or fiscal year. PMCC considered this matter in its adoption of FIN 48 and FASB Staff Position No. FAS 13-2.

-67-

Item 4. Controls and Procedures.

Altria Group, Inc. carried out an evaluation, with the participation of Altria Group, Inc.’s management, including ALG’s Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, of the effectiveness of Altria Group, Inc.’s disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Rule 13a-15(e) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended) as of the end of the period covered by this report. Based upon that evaluation, ALG’s Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer concluded that Altria Group, Inc.’s disclosure controls and procedures are effective. There have been no changes in Altria Group, Inc.’s internal control over financial reporting during the most recent fiscal quarter that have materially affected, or are reasonably likely to materially affect, Altria Group, Inc.’s internal control over financial reporting.

-68-

Part II - OTHER INFORMATION

Item 1. Legal Proceedings.

See Note 11. Contingencies, of the Notes to the Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements included in Part I, Item 1 of this report for a discussion of legal proceedings pending against Altria Group, Inc. and its subsidiaries. See also Exhibits 99.1 and 99.2 to this report.

Item 1A. Risk Factors.

Information regarding Risk Factors appears in “MD&A – Cautionary Factors That May Affect Future Results,” in Part I – Item 2 of this Form 10-Q and in Part I – Item 1A. Risk Factors of our Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2006. Other than as set forth in Part I – Item 2. of this Form 10-Q, there have been no material changes from the risk factors previously disclosed in our Report on Form 10-K.

Item 2. Unregistered Sales of Equity Securities and Use of Proceeds.

ALG’s share repurchase activity for each of the three months ended March 31, 2007, was as follows:

					Total Number of	Approximate Dollar
					Shares Purchased as	Value of Shares that
	Total Number of		Average		Part of Publicly	May Yet be Purchased
	Shares		Price Paid		Announced Plans or	Under the Plans or
Period	Repurchased(1)		Per Share		Programs	Programs
January 1, 2007 – January 31, 2007		18,274	$	88.93	–	–
February 1, 2007 – February 28, 2007		625,163	$	86.53	–	–
March 1, 2007 – March 31, 2007		411,770	$	86.30	–	–
For the Quarter Ended March 31, 2007		1,055,207	$	86.48	–	–

(1) The shares repurchased during the periods presented above represent shares tendered to ALG by employees who vested in restricted or deferred stock and rights, or exercised stock options, and used shares to pay all, or a portion of, the related taxes and/or option exercise price.

-69-

Item 4. Submission of Matters to a Vote of Security Holders.

ALG’s annual meeting of stockholders was held in East Hanover, New Jersey, on April 26, 2007. 1,821,045,181 shares of Common Stock, 86.7% of outstanding shares, were represented in person or by proxy.

The eleven directors listed below were elected to a one-year term expiring in 2008.

	Number of Shares
	For		Withheld
Elizabeth E. Bailey		1,786,295,085		34,750,096
Harold Brown		1,794,384,299		26,660,882
Mathis Cabiallavetta		1,799,007,979		22,037,202
Louis C. Camilleri		1,791,253,211		29,791,970
J. Dudley Fishburn		1,794,135,394		26,909,787
Robert E. R. Huntley		1,784,411,036		36,634,145
Thomas W. Jones		1,799,314,263		21,730,918
George Muñoz		1,797,283,162		23,762,019
Lucio A. Noto		1,786,912,994		34,132,187
John S. Reed		1,795,555,745		25,489,436
Stephen M. Wolf		1,785,637,771		35,407,410

The selection of PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP as independent auditors was ratified: 1,784,718,446 shares voted in favor; 18,547,229 shares voted against and 17,779,506 shares abstained.

Five stockholder proposals were defeated:

Stockholder Proposal 1 – Cumulative Voting: 347,169,518 shares voted in favor; 1,035,704,727 against and 438,170,936 shares abstained (including broker non-votes).

Stockholder Proposal 2 – Informing Children of their Rights if Forced to Incur Secondhand Smoke: 43,785,225 shares voted in favor; 1,141,734,169 against and 635,525,787 shares abstained (including broker non-votes).

Stockholder Proposal 3 – Stop All Company-Sponsored “Campaigns” Allegedly Oriented to Prevent Youth from Smoking: 38,799,903 shares voted in favor; 1,146,371,328 against and 635,873,950 shares abstained (including broker non-votes).

Stockholder Proposal 4 – Get Out of Traditional Tobacco Business by 2010: 13,615,273 shares voted in favor; 1,196,023,710 against and 611,406,198 shares abstained (including broker non-votes).

Stockholder Proposal 5 – Animal Welfare Policy: 48,166,500 shares voted in favor; 1,148,405,377 against and 624,473,304 shares abstained (including broker non-votes).

-70-

Item 6. Exhibits.

2.1	Distribution Agreement by and between Altria Group, Inc. and Kraft Foods Inc., dated as of January 31, 2007 (Incorporated by reference to ALG’s Current Report on Form 8-K dated January 31, 2007).
10.1	Transition Services Agreement by and between Altria Corporate Services, Inc. and Kraft Foods Inc. dated as of March 30, 2007 (Incorporated by reference to ALG’s Current Report on Form 8-K dated March 30, 2007).
10.2	Employee Matters Agreement by and between Altria Group, Inc. and Kraft Foods Inc. dated as of March 30, 2007 (Incorporated by reference to ALG’s Current Report on Form 8-K dated March 30, 2007).
10.3	Tax Sharing Agreement by and between Altria Group, Inc. and Kraft Foods Inc. dated as of March 30, 2007 (Incorporated by reference to ALG’s Current Report on Form 8-K dated March 30, 2007).
10.4	364-Day Revolving Credit Agreement dated as of March 29, 2007 among Altria Group, Inc. and the Initial Lenders named therein and JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. and Citibank, N.A. as Administrative Agents, Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC and Deutsche Bank Securities Inc. as Syndication Agents and ABN AMRO Bank N.V., BNP Paribas, HSBC Bank USA, National Association and UBS Loan Finance LLC as Arrangers and Documentation Agents (Incorporated by reference to ALG’s Current Report on Form 8-K dated April 3, 2007).
10.5	Form of Deferred Stock Agreement (Incorporated by reference to ALG’s Current Report on Form 8-K dated February 2, 2007).
12	Statement regarding computation of ratios of earnings to fixed charges.
31.1	Certification of Chief Executive Officer pursuant to Rule 13a-14(a)/15d-14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, as adopted pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.
31.2	Certification of Chief Financial Officer pursuant to Rule 13a-14(a)/15d-14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, as adopted pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.
32.1	Certification of Chief Executive Officer pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.
32.2	Certification of Chief Financial Officer pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.
99.1	Certain Litigation Matters and Recent Developments.
99.2	Trial Schedule for Certain Cases.

-71-

Signature

          Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the Registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned thereunto duly authorized.

ALTRIA GROUP, INC.

/s/ DINYAR S. DEVITRE

Dinyar S. Devitre

Senior Vice President and

Chief Financial Officer

May 7, 2007

-72-

EX-12

Exhibit 12

ALTRIA GROUP, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
Computation of Ratios of Earnings to Fixed Charges
(in millions of dollars)

	Three Months
	Ended
	March 31, 2007
Earnings from continuing operations before income taxes, and equity earnings and minority interest, net	$	3,136
Add (deduct):
Equity in net earnings of less than 50% owned affiliates		(21	)
Fixed charges		249
Interest capitalized, net of amortization		(2	)
Earnings available for fixed charges	$	3,362
Fixed charges:
Interest incurred:
Consumer products	$	208
Financial services		16
		224
Portion of rent expense deemed to represent interest factor		25
Fixed charges	$	249
Ratio of earnings to fixed charges		13.5

-1-

Exhibit 12

ALTRIA GROUP, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
Computation of Ratios of Earnings to Fixed Charges
(in millions of dollars)

	For the Years Ended December 31,
	2006			2005			2004			2003			2002
Earnings from continuing operations before income taxes, and equity earnings and minority interest, net	$	12,520		$	11,319		$	10,058		$	9,414		$	12,831
Add (deduct):
Equity in net earnings of less than 50% owned affiliates		(172	)		(180	)		(134	)		(152	)		(184	)
Dividends from less than 50% owned affiliates		196			170			154			116			16
Fixed charges		927			1,082			938			899			674
Interest capitalized, net of amortization		(4	)		(7	)		2			11			12
Earnings available for fixed charges	$	13,467		$	12,384		$	11,018		$	10,288		$	13,349
Fixed charges:
Interest incurred:
Consumer products	$	744		$	871		$	747		$	689		$	473
Financial services		81			107			94			105			100
		825			978			841			794			573
Portion of rent expense deemed to represent interest factor		102			104			97			105			101
Fixed charges	$	927		$	1,082		$	938		$	899		$	674
Ratio of earnings to fixed charges (A)		14.5			11.4			11.7			11.4			19.8

(A) Earnings from continuing operations before income taxes and minority interest for the year ended December 31, 2002, include a non-recurring pre-tax gain of $2,631 million related to the Miller Brewing Company transaction. Excluding this gain, the ratio of earnings to fixed charges would have been 15.9 to 1.0 for the year ended December 31, 2002.

-2-

EX-31.1

Exhibit 31.1

Certifications

I, Louis C. Camilleri, certify that:

1.	I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Altria Group, Inc.;
2.	Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;
3.	Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;
4.	The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and have:

(a)	Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;
(b)	Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles;
(c)	Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and
(d)	Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

(a)	All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and
(b)	Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

Date: May 7, 2007

/s/ LOUIS C. CAMILLERI  

Louis C. Camilleri 

Chairman and Chief Executive Officer 

-1-

EX-31.2

Exhibit 31.2

Certifications

I, Dinyar S. Devitre, certify that:

1.	I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Altria Group, Inc.;
2.	Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;
3.	Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;
4.	The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and have:

(a)	Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;
(b)	Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles;
(c)	Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and
(d)	Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

(a)	All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and
(b)	Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

Date: May 7, 2007

/s/ DINYAR S. DEVITRE  

Dinyar S. Devitre 

Senior Vice President and
Chief Financial Officer 

-1-

EX-32.1

Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Altria Group, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Louis C. Camilleri, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1)	the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
(2)	the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

/s/ LOUIS C. CAMILLERI
Louis C. Camilleri
Chairman and Chief
Executive Officer
May 7, 2007

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Altria Group, Inc. and will be retained by Altria Group, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

-1-

EX-32.2

Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Altria Group, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Dinyar S. Devitre, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1)	the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
(2)	the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

/s/ DINYAR S. DEVITRE
Dinyar S. Devitre
Senior Vice President and
Chief Financial Officer
May 7, 2007

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Altria Group, Inc. and will be retained by Altria Group, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

-1-

EX-99.1

Exhibit 99.1

CERTAIN LITIGATION MATTERS AND RECENT DEVELOPMENTS

As described in Note 11, Contingencies of this Form 10-Q, there are legal proceedings covering a wide range of matters pending or threatened in various U.S. and foreign jurisdictions against ALG, its subsidiaries and affiliates, including PM USA and PMI, and their respective indemnitees. Various types of claims are raised in these proceedings, including product liability, consumer protection, antitrust, tax, contraband shipments, patent infringement, employment matters, claims for contribution and claims of competitors and distributors. Pending claims related to tobacco products generally fall within the following categories: (i) smoking and health cases alleging personal injury brought on behalf of individual plaintiffs, (ii) smoking and health cases primarily alleging personal injury or seeking court-supervised programs for ongoing medical monitoring and purporting to be brought on behalf of a class of individual plaintiffs, including cases in which the aggregated claims of a number of individual plaintiffs are to be tried in a single proceeding, (iii) health care cost recovery cases brought by governmental (both domestic and foreign) and non-governmental plaintiffs seeking reimbursement for health care expenditures allegedly caused by cigarette smoking and/or disgorgement of profits, (iv) class action suits alleging that the uses of the terms “Lights” and “Ultra Lights” constitute deceptive and unfair trade practices, common law fraud or RICO violations, and (v) other tobacco-related litigation.

The following lists certain of the pending claims included in these categories and certain other pending claims. Certain developments in these cases since March 10, 2007 are also described.

SMOKING AND HEALTH LITIGATION

The following lists the consolidated individual smoking and health cases as well as smoking and health class actions pending against PM USA and, in some cases, ALG and/or its other subsidiaries and affiliates, including PMI, as of May 1, 2007, and describes certain developments in these cases since March 10, 2007.

Consolidated Individual Smoking and Health Cases

In re: Tobacco Litigation (Individual Personal Injury cases), Circuit Court, Ohio County, West Virginia, consolidated January 11, 2000. In West Virginia, all smoking and health cases in state court alleging personal injury have been transferred to the State’s Mass Litigation Panel. The transferred cases include individual cases and putative class actions. All individual cases filed in or transferred to the court by September 13, 2000 were consolidated for pretrial proceedings and trial. Currently, the aggregated claims of 928 individuals (of which 575 individuals have claims against PM USA) are pending. In December 2005, the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals ruled that the United States Constitution does not preclude a trial in two phases in this case. Issues related to defendants’ conduct, plaintiffs’ entitlement to punitive damages and a punitive damages multiplier, if any, would be determined in the first phase. The second phase would consist of individual trials to determine liability, if any, and compensatory damages. Defendants have moved to vacate the trial court’s trial plan based on the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Williams v. Philip Morris. Trial for the first phase has been scheduled for March 2008.

Flight Attendant Litigation

The settlement agreement entered into in 1997 in the case of Broin, et al. v. Philip Morris Companies Inc., et al., which was brought by flight attendants seeking damages for personal injuries allegedly caused by environmental tobacco smoke, allows members of the Broin class to file individual lawsuits seeking compensatory damages, but prohibits them from seeking punitive damages. In October 2000, the trial court ruled that the flight attendants will not be required to prove the substantive liability elements of their claims for negligence, strict liability and breach of implied warranty in order to recover damages, if any, other than establishing that the plaintiffs’ alleged injuries were caused by their exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and, if so, the amount of compensatory damages to be awarded. Defendants’ initial appeal of this ruling was dismissed as premature. Defendants appealed the October 2000 rulings in connection with their appeal of the

-1-

Exhibit 99.1

adverse jury verdict in the French case. In December 2004, the Florida Third District Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment awarding plaintiff in the French case $500,000, and directed the trial court to hold defendants jointly and severally liable. Defendants’ motion for rehearing was denied in April 2005. In December 2005, after exhausting all appeals, PM USA paid $328,759 (including interest of $78,259) as its share of the judgment amount and interest in French; the issue of attorneys’ fees is being litigated and so the extent to which defendants are obligated for such fees, if at all, remains to be determined. As of May 1, 2007, 2,623 cases were pending in the Circuit Court of Dade County, Florida against PM USA and three other cigarette manufacturers, and to date, no cases are scheduled for trial through the end of 2007.

Domestic Class Actions

Engle, et al. v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., et al., Circuit Court, Eleventh Judicial Circuit, Dade County, Florida, filed May 5, 1994. See Note 11, Contingencies, for a discussion of this case.

Scott, et al. v. The American Tobacco Company, et al., Civil District Court, Orleans Parish, Louisiana, filed May 24, 1996. See Note 11, Contingencies, for a discussion of this case.

Young, et al. v. The American Tobacco Company, et al., Civil District Court, Orleans Parish, Louisiana, filed November 12, 1997.

Parsons, et al. v. A C & S, Inc., et al., Circuit Court, Kanawha County, West Virginia, filed February 27, 1998.

Cleary, et al. v. Philip Morris Incorporated, et al., Circuit Court, Cook County, Illinois, filed June 3, 1998. In April 2006, defendants’ motion to dismiss a nuisance claim was granted. In July 2006, plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification.

Cypret, et al. v. The American Tobacco Company, et al., Circuit Court, Jackson County, Missouri, filed December 22, 1998.

Simms, et al. v. Philip Morris Incorporated, et al., United States District Court, District of Columbia, filed May 23, 2001. In May 2004, plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration of the court’s 2003 ruling that denied their motion for class certification. In September 2004, plaintiffs renewed their motion for reconsideration. This motion was denied by the court in December 2006.

Lowe, et al. v. Philip Morris Incorporated, et al., Circuit Court, Multnomah County, Oregon, filed November 19, 2001. In September 2003, the court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint, and plaintiffs appealed. In September 2006, the Oregon Court of Appeals affirmed the final judgment in favor of the defendants. In December 2006, plaintiffs filed a petition for review with the Oregon Supreme Court. The Oregon Supreme Court granted plaintiffs’ petition for review on March 20, 2007.

Caronia, et al. v. Philip Morris USA, Inc., United States District Court, Eastern District of New York, filed January 13, 2006. See Note 11, Contingencies, for a discussion of this case.

Donovan, et al. v. Philip Morris, United States District Court, District of Massachusetts, filed March 2, 2007. See Note 11, Contingencies, for a discussion of this case.

Espinosa, et al. v. Philip Morris USA, Inc. et al., United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois, filed December 6, 2006. See Note 11, Contingencies, for a discussion of this case.

-2-

Exhibit 99.1

International Class Actions

The Smoker Health Defense Association (ADESF) v. Souza Cruz, S.A. and Philip Morris Marketing, S.A., Nineteenth Lower Civil Court of the Central Courts of the Judiciary District of São Paulo, Brazil, filed July 25, 1995. See Note 11, Contingencies, for a discussion of this case.

Sasson, et al. v. Philip Morris International Inc., et al., District Court, Tel Aviv, Israel, filed July 11, 2005. Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification is pending. Defendants’ appeal of the trial court’s denial of defendants’ motion to dismiss the case on statute of limitations grounds is pending.

HEALTH CARE COST RECOVERY LITIGATION

The following lists the health care cost recovery actions pending against PM USA and, in some cases, ALG and/or its other subsidiaries and affiliates as of May 1, 2007 and describes certain developments in these cases since March 10, 2007. As discussed in Note 11, Contingencies, in 1998, PM USA and certain other United States tobacco product manufacturers entered into a Master Settlement Agreement (the “MSA”) settling the health care cost recovery claims of 46 states, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam, the United States Virgin Islands, American Samoa and the Northern Marianas. Settlement agreements settling similar claims had previously been entered into with the states of Mississippi, Florida, Texas and Minnesota. PM USA believes that the claims in the city/county, taxpayer and certain of the other health care cost recovery actions listed below are released in whole or in part by the MSA or that recovery in any such actions should be subject to the offset provisions of the MSA.

City of St. Louis Case

City of St. Louis, et al. v. American Tobacco, et al., Circuit Court, City of St. Louis, Missouri, filed November 23, 1998. In November 2001, the court granted in part and denied in part defendants’ motion to dismiss and dismissed three of plaintiffs’ 11 claims. In June 2005, the court granted in part defendants’ motion for summary judgment limiting plaintiffs’ claims for past compensatory damages to those that accrued after November 16, 1993, five years prior to the filing of the suit. The case remains pending without a trial date.

Department of Justice Case

The United States of America v. Philip Morris Incorporated, et al., United States District Court, District of Columbia, filed September 22, 1999. See Note 11, Contingencies, for a discussion of this case.

International Cases

Kupat Holim Clalit v. Philip Morris USA, et al., Jerusalem District Court, Israel, filed September 28, 1998. Defendants’ motion to dismiss the case has been denied by the district court. In June 2004, defendants filed a motion with the Israel Supreme Court for leave to appeal. The appeal was heard by the Supreme Court in March 2005, and the parties are awaiting the court’s decision.

The Caisse Primaire d’Assurance Maladie of Saint-Nazaire v. SEITA, et al., Civil Court of Saint-Nazaire, France, filed June 1999. In September 2003, the court dismissed the case. Plaintiff appealed and the Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal in December 2006. Plaintiff has appealed further to the Court of Cassation (Supreme Court).

In re: Tobacco/Governmental Health Care Costs Litigation (MDL No. 1279), United States District Court, District of Columbia, consolidated June 1999. In June 1999, the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transferred foreign government health care cost recovery actions brought by Nicaragua, Venezuela, and Thailand to the District of Columbia for coordinated pretrial proceedings with two such actions brought by Bolivia and Guatemala already pending in that court. Subsequently, the resulting proceeding has also included

-3-

Exhibit 99.1

filed cases brought by the following foreign governments: Ukraine; the Brazilian States of Espirito Santo, Goias, Mato Grosso do Sul, Para, Parana, Pernambuco, Piaui, Rondonia, São Paulo and Tocantins; Panama; the Province of Ontario, Canada; Ecuador; the Russian Federation; Honduras; Tajikistan; Belize; the Kyrgyz Republic; and 11 Brazilian cities. The cases brought by Thailand and the Kyrgyz Republic were voluntarily dismissed. The complaints filed by Guatemala, Nicaragua, Ukraine and the Province of Ontario have been dismissed, and the dismissals are now final. The district court remanded the cases brought by Belize, Ecuador, Honduras, the Russian Federation, Tajikistan, Venezuela, nine Brazilian states and the 11 Brazilian cities to Florida state courts and remanded the cases brought by one Brazilian state and Panama to Louisiana state court. Subsequent to remand, the Ecuador case was voluntarily dismissed. In November 2001, the Venezuela and Espirito Santo actions were dismissed, and Venezuela appealed. In September 2002, a Florida intermediate appellate court affirmed the ruling dismissing the case brought by Venezuela. In June 2003, the Florida Supreme Court denied Venezuela’s petition for further review. In August 2003, the trial court granted defendants’ motions to dismiss the cases brought by Tajikistan and one Brazilian state, and plaintiffs in the other 21 cases then pending in Florida voluntarily dismissed their claims without prejudice. In December 2004, the parties in the case brought by Bolivia filed a stipulation of dismissal without prejudice. In March 2005, the trial court in Louisiana dismissed the cases brought by Panama and one Brazilian state without prejudice on the basis of forum non conveniens. Plaintiffs refiled their complaints in state court in Delaware and dropped an appeal of the Louisiana dismissal, and in June 2006, the Delaware Superior Court dismissed the Panama and São Paulo cases for failure to state a claim. Plaintiffs appealed and in February 2007, the Delaware Supreme Court affirmed the dismissals of both cases.

Her Majesty the Queen in Right of British Columbia v. Imperial Tobacco Limited, et al., Supreme Court, British Columbia, Vancouver Registry, Canada, filed January 24, 2001. In June 2003, the trial court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the case, and plaintiff appealed. In May 2004, the appellate court reversed the trial court’s decision. Defendants appealed. In September 2005, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that the legislation permitting the lawsuit is constitutional, and, as a result, the case will proceed before the trial court. On September 15, 2006, the British Columbia Court of Appeal rejected PMI and PM USA’s motions seeking dismissal from the case on jurisdictional grounds. In April 2007, the Supreme Court of Canada denied PMI’s and PM USA’s motion seeking leave to appeal.

Junta de Andalucia, et al. v. Philip Morris Spain, et al., Court of First Instance, Madrid, Spain, filed February 21, 2002. In May 2004, the Court of First Instance dismissed the case, and plaintiffs appealed. In January 2006, the High Court of Appeal of Madrid dismissed plaintiffs’ appeal. In July 2006, the Junta filed a claim with the Contentious Administrative Court challenging the rejection of the Junta’s formal request for reimbursement of health care costs of treating smokers. The Junta alleges that the Spanish tobacco companies, including PMI Spain, are jointly liable for the health care costs. Although it has not yet been served in this action, Philip Morris Spain entered its appearance in February 2007.

The Republic of Panama v. The American Tobacco Company, Inc., Superior Court, New Castle County, Delaware, filed July 21, 2005, following forum non conveniens dismissal in Louisiana. In June 2006, the court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. In February 2007, the Delaware Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of the case.

The State of São Paulo of the Federative Republic of Brazil v. The American Tobacco Company, et al., Superior Court, New Castle County, Delaware, filed July 21, 2005, following forum non conveniens dismissal in Louisiana. In June 2006, the court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. In February 2007, the Delaware Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of the case.

Public Civil Actions

Associacao dos Consumidores Explorados do Distrito Federal v. Philip Morris Brasil Industria e Comercio Ltda., State Court of Brasilia, filed April 14, 2006. Plaintiff seeks a ban on the production and sale of cigarettes on the grounds that they are harmful to health. Plaintiff’s complaint also requests a fine amounting to

-4-

Exhibit 99.1

approximately $500,000 per day be imposed should the ban be granted and defendant continues to produce or sell cigarettes. Defendant filed a response to the complaint in June 2006.

Associacao dos Consumidores Explorados do Distrito Federal v. Sampoerna Tabacos America Latina Ltda., filed April 14, 2006. Plaintiff seeks a ban on the production and sale of cigarettes on the grounds that they are harmful to health. Plaintiff’s complaint also requests a fine amounting to approximately $500,000 per day be imposed should the ban be granted and defendant continues to produce or sell cigarettes. Defendant filed a response to the complaint in June 2006.

Morales v. Philip Morris Colombia S.A. and Colombian Government, Administrative Court of Bogotá, filed February 2, 2007. Plaintiff alleges that Philip Morris Colombia violated the collective right to a healthy environment, public health rights, and the rights of consumers, and that the government failed to protect those rights. Plaintiff seeks various monetary damages and other relief, including a ban on descriptors and a ban on cigarette advertising. Philip Morris Colombia filed its answer to the complaint in March 2007.

Garrido v. Philip Morris Colombia S.A., Civil Court of Bogotá, filed March 30, 2007. Plaintiff seeks various forms of injunctive relief, including the ban of the use of “lights” descriptors, and requests that Philip Morris Colombia be ordered to finance a national campaign against smoking. Philip Morris Colombia filed its answer in April 2007.

Garrido v. Coltabaco (Garrido II), Civil Court of Bogotá, filed March 2007. Plaintiff seeks various forms of injunctive relief, including the ban of the use of “lights” descriptors, and requests that Coltabaco be ordered to finance a national campaign against smoking. Coltabaco filed its answer in April 2007.

Medicare Secondary Payer Act Cases

Glover, et al. v. Philip Morris Incorporated, et al., United States District Court, Middle District, Florida, filed May 26, 2004. In July 2005, the court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss with prejudice all of plaintiffs’ claims, and plaintiffs appealed. In August 2006, a federal appeals court affirmed the trial court’s dismissal of plaintiffs’ claims. In September 2006, plaintiffs filed a petition for rehearing en banc with the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. This petition was rejected in November 2006.

United Seniors Association v. Philip Morris, et al., District of Massachusetts, filed August 4, 2005. In August 2006, the trial court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint. In September 2006, plaintiff appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.

LIGHTS/ULTRA LIGHTS CASES

The following lists the Lights/Ultra Lights cases pending against ALG and/or its various subsidiaries and others as of May 1, 2007, and describes certain developments since March 10, 2007.

Aspinall, et al. v. Philip Morris Companies Inc. and Philip Morris Incorporated, Superior Court, Suffolk County, Massachusetts, filed November 24, 1998. In October 2001, the court granted plaintiffs’ motion for class certification, and defendants appealed. In May 2003, the single Justice sitting on behalf of the Massachusetts Court of Appeals decertified the class. In August 2004, Massachusetts’ highest court affirmed the trial court’s ruling and reinstated the class certification order. In April 2006, plaintiffs filed a motion to have the court redefine the class. In August 2006, the trial court denied PM USA’s motion for summary judgment based on the state consumer protection statutory exemption and federal preemption. On motion of the parties, the trial court reported its decision to deny summary judgment to the appeals court for review, and the trial court proceedings are stayed pending completion of the appellate review. Motions for direct appellate review by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court were granted in April 2007.

-5-

Exhibit 99.1

McClure, et al. v. Philip Morris Companies Inc. and Philip Morris Incorporated, Circuit Court, Davidson County, Tennessee, filed January 19, 1999. Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification on behalf of all purchasers of Marlboro Lights in Tennessee is pending. In June 2006, PM USA filed a motion to dismiss on federal preemption and consumer protection statutory exemption grounds.

Price, et al. v. Philip Morris Incorporated, Circuit Court, Madison County, Illinois, filed February 10, 2000. See Note 11, Contingencies, for a discussion of this case.

Craft, et al. v. Philip Morris Companies Inc., et al., Circuit Court, City of St. Louis, Missouri, filed February 15, 2000. In December 2003, the trial court granted plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. In September 2004, the court granted in part and denied in part PM USA’s motion for reconsideration. In August 2005, the Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s class certification order. In September 2005, the case was removed to federal court. In March 2006, the federal trial court granted plaintiffs’ motion and remanded the case to the Circuit Court, City of St. Louis. In May 2006, the Missouri Supreme Court declined to review the trial court’s class certification decision. A status conference is scheduled for June 30, 2007 in the trial court.

Hines, et al. v. Philip Morris Companies Inc., et al., Circuit Court, Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County, Florida, filed February 23, 2001. In February 2002, the court granted plaintiffs’ motion for class certification, and defendants appealed. In December 2003, a Florida District Court of Appeal decertified the class. In March 2004, plaintiffs filed a motion for rehearing, en banc review or certification to the Florida Supreme Court. In December 2004, the Florida Supreme Court stayed further proceedings pending the resolution of the Engle case discussed in Note 11, Contingencies. In January 2007, the Florida Supreme Court lifted the stay, but did not issue a decision on whether it will take jurisdiction of plaintiffs’ appeal.

Moore, et al. v. Philip Morris Incorporated, et al., Circuit Court, Marshall County, West Virginia, filed September 17, 2001.

Curtis, et al. v. Philip Morris Companies Inc., et al., United States District Court, Minnesota, filed November 28, 2001. In January 2004, the Fourth Judicial District Court, Hennepin County denied plaintiffs’ motion for class certification and defendants’ motions for summary judgment. In November 2004, the trial court granted plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration and ordered the certification of a class. In April 2005, the Minnesota Supreme Court denied defendants’ petition for interlocutory review. In September 2005, the case was removed to federal court. In February 2006, the federal court denied plaintiffs’ motion to remand the case to state court. The case has been stayed pending the outcome of Dahl v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., which was argued before the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit in December 2006. In February 2007, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit issued its ruling in Dahl, and reversed the federal district court’s denial of plaintiff’s motion to remand that case to the state trial court. Curtis continues to be stayed pending an appeal in the Minnesota state court in Dahl of the dismissal of that Lights class action on preemption grounds.

Tremblay, et al. v. Philip Morris Incorporated, Superior Court, Rockingham County, New Hampshire, filed March 29, 2002. The case has been consolidated with another Lights/Ultra Lights case and has been informally stayed.

Pearson v. Philip Morris Incorporated, et al., Circuit Court, Multnomah County, Oregon, filed November 20, 2002. In October 2005, plaintiffs’ motion for class certification on behalf of all purchasers of Marlboro Lights in Oregon was denied. In addition, PM USA’s motion for summary judgment with respect to reliance “from the time that plaintiff learned of the alleged fraud and continued to purchase Lights” cigarettes was granted. In November 2005, plaintiffs filed a motion with the trial court to have its order denying class certification certified for interlocutory appellate review. In March 2006, plaintiffs petitioned the Oregon Court of Appeals to review the trial court’s order denying plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. In October 2006, the Oregon

-6-

Exhibit 99.1

Court of Appeals denied plaintiffs’ petition for review. Plaintiffs did not file a petition for review of the denial of the class certification decision by the Oregon Supreme Court by the deadline for doing so. In February 2007, PM USA filed a motion for summary judgment based on federal preemption and the Oregon statutory exemption.

Sullivan v. Philip Morris USA, Inc., et al., United States District Court, Western District, Louisiana, filed March 28, 2003. In August 2005, the court granted in part the motion for summary judgment filed by PM USA by dismissing plaintiffs’ claims asserted under the Louisiana Unfair Trade and Consumer Protection Act. In December 2005, the court denied PM USA’s motion for reconsideration of the portion of the ruling denying its motion for summary judgment but certified the issue for interlocutory appeal. In February 2007, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed that portion of the district court’s ruling denying summary judgment and remanded with directions to enter judgment dismissing all claims. On March 22, 2007, the federal district court entered final judgment in favor of defendants and dismissed the case with prejudice.

Virden v. Altria Group, Inc., et al., Circuit Court, Hancock County, West Virginia, filed March 28, 2003.

Stern, et al. v. Philip Morris USA, Inc. et al., Superior Court, Middlesex County, New Jersey, filed April 4, 2003. In March 2006, the court granted PM USA’s motion to strike plaintiffs’ class certification motion, and plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration.

Arnold, et al. v. Philip Morris USA Inc., Circuit Court, Madison County, Illinois, filed May 5, 2003.

Watson, et al. v. Altria Group, Inc., et al., United States District Court, Eastern District, Arkansas, filed May 29, 2003. In January 2006, the court stayed all activity in the case pending the resolution of plaintiffs’ petition for writ of certiorari filed with the United States Supreme Court. On January 12, 2007 the United States Supreme Court granted the plaintiffs’ petition for writ of certiorari and on April 25, 2007 heard oral arguments.

Holmes, et al. v. Philip Morris USA Inc., et al., Superior Court, New Castle County, Delaware, filed August 18, 2003. In June 2006, PM USA filed a motion for summary judgment on preemption and consumer protection statutory exemption grounds.

El-Roy, et al. v. Philip Morris Incorporated, et al., District Court of Tel-Aviv/Jaffa, Israel, filed January 18, 2004. Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification is pending.

Davies v. Philip Morris USA Inc., et al., Superior Court, King County, Washington, filed April 8, 2004. In May 2006, plaintiffs’ motion for class certification on behalf of all purchasers of Marlboro Lights in Washington was denied. In September 2006, a Commissioner of the Court of Appeals of Washington denied plaintiffs’ appeal of the trial court’s denial of the class certification motion. On October 17, 2006, plaintiffs sought review of the class certification decision by the full Court of Appeals. In December 2006, a three-judge panel of the Court of Appeals of Washington denied plaintiffs’ motion for review of the class certification decision. In January 2007, plaintiffs filed a request for discretionary review with the Washington Supreme Court. On March 2, 2007, the Washington Supreme Court denied plaintiffs’ motion for review. On April 2, 2007, plaintiffs asked the Washington Supreme Court to modify its ruling denying plaintiffs’ motion for discretionary review.

Schwab, et al. v. Philip Morris USA Inc., et al., United States District Court, Eastern District of New York, filed May 11, 2004. See Note 11, Contingencies, for a discussion of this case.

Navon, et al. v. Philip Morris Products USA, et al., District Court of Tel-Aviv/Jaffa, Israel, filed December 5, 2004. This case has been stayed pending the resolution of class certification issues in El-Roy v. Philip Morris Incorporated, et al.

Miner, et al. v. Altria Group, Inc., et al., United States District Court, Western District, Arkansas, filed December 29, 2004. In December 2005, plaintiffs moved for certification of a class composed of individuals

-7-

Exhibit 99.1

who purchased Marlboro Lights or Cambridge Lights brands in Arizona, California, Colorado and Michigan. In December 2005, defendants filed a motion to stay plaintiffs’ motion for class certification pending PM USA’s motion to transfer the case to the United States Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas. This motion to transfer was granted in January 2006. PM USA’s motion for summary judgment is pending. After the motion was filed, plaintiffs moved to voluntarily dismiss the case without prejudice, which PM USA opposed. The court then stayed the action pending the United States Supreme Court’s ruling on plaintiffs’ petition for writ of certiorari in Watson. The United States Supreme Court granted the plaintiffs’ petition for certiorari in Watson in January 2007.

Mulford, et al. v. Altria Group, Inc., et al., United States District Court, New Mexico, filed June 9, 2005. On March 16, 2007, the federal district court granted in part PM USA’s motion for summary judgment, ruling that plaintiffs’ claims of fraudulent concealment, failure to warn and warning neutralization are expressly preempted by the Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act. The court otherwise denied PM USA’s motion for summary judgment on express preemption under the Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act, implied federal preemption and the statutory exemption from liability under the New Mexico Unfair Practices Act, with respect to plaintiffs’ claims that PM USA made false statements about lights cigarettes on its packages. On March 30, 2007, PM USA filed a motion for reconsideration of the part of the court’s order denying PM USA’s motion for summary judgment. On March 22, 2007, the federal district court denied plaintiffs’ amended motion for class certification.

Benedict, et al. v. Altria Group, Inc., et al., United States District Court, Kansas, filed June 27, 2005. On March 30, 2007, the federal district court denied plaintiffs’ motion for class certification.

Good, et al. v. Altria Group, Inc., et al., United States District Court, Maine, filed August 15, 2005. In May 2006, the federal trial court granted PM USA’s motion for summary judgment on the grounds that plaintiffs’ claims are preempted by the Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act and dismissed the case. In June 2006, plaintiffs appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. Oral arguments were heard on this appeal on January 9, 2007.

CERTAIN OTHER TOBACCO-RELATED ACTIONS

The following lists certain other tobacco-related litigation pending against ALG and/or its various subsidiaries and others as of May 1, 2007, and describes certain developments since March 10, 2007.

Tobacco Price Cases

Smith, et al. v. Philip Morris Companies Inc., et al., District Court, Seward County, Kansas, filed February 9, 2000. In November 2001, the court granted plaintiffs’ motion for class certification.

Romero, et al. v. Philip Morris Companies Inc., et al., First Judicial District Court, Rio Arriba County, New Mexico, filed April 10, 2000. Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification was granted in April 2003. In February 2005, the New Mexico Court of Appeals affirmed the class certification decision. In June 2006, defendants’ motion for summary judgment was granted and the case was dismissed. In July 2006, plaintiffs appealed the trial court’s grant of summary judgment.

Wholesale Leaders Cases

Smith Wholesale Company, Inc., et al., v. Philip Morris USA Inc., United States District Court, Eastern District, Tennessee, filed July 10, 2003. See Note 11, Contingencies, for a discussion of this case.

-8-

Exhibit 99.1

Cases Under the California Business and Professions Code

Brown, et al. v. The American Tobacco Company, Inc., et al., Superior Court, San Diego County, California, filed June 10, 1997. In April 2001, the court granted in part plaintiffs’ motion for class certification and certified a class comprised of residents of California who smoked at least one of defendants’ cigarettes between June 1993 and April 2001 and who were exposed to defendants’ marketing and advertising activities in California. Certification was granted as to plaintiffs’ claims that defendants violated California Business and Professions Code Sections 17200 and 17500 pursuant to which plaintiffs allege that class members are entitled to reimbursement of the costs of cigarettes purchased during the class period and injunctive relief barring activities allegedly in violation of the Business and Professions Code. In September 2004, the trial court granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment as to plaintiffs’ claims attacking defendants’ cigarette advertising and promotion and denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment on plaintiffs’ claims based on allegedly false affirmative statements. Plaintiffs’ motion for rehearing was denied. In November 2004, defendants filed a motion to decertify the class based on a recent change in California law, which, in two July 2006 opinions, the California Supreme Court ruled applicable to pending cases. In March 2005, the court granted defendants’ motion. In April 2005, the court denied plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration of the order that decertified the class. In May 2005, plaintiffs appealed. In September 2006, the California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, affirmed the trial court’s order decertifying the class. In November 2006, the California Supreme Court accepted review of the appellate court’s decision.

Daniels, et al. v. Philip Morris Companies Inc., et al., Superior Court, San Diego County, California, filed April 2, 1998. In November 2000, the court granted the plaintiffs’ motion for class certification on behalf of minor California residents who smoked at least one cigarette between April 1994 and December 1999. Certification was granted as to plaintiffs’ claims that defendants violated California Business and Professions Code Section 17200 pursuant to which plaintiffs allege that class members are entitled to reimbursements of the costs of cigarettes purchased during the class period and injunctive relief barring activities allegedly in violation of the Business and Professions Code. In September 2002, the court granted defendants’ motions for summary judgment as to all claims in the case, and plaintiffs appealed. In October 2004, the California Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s ruling. In February 2005, the California Supreme Court agreed to hear plaintiffs’ appeal.

Gurevitch, et al. v. Philip Morris USA Inc., et al., Superior Court, Los Angeles County, California, filed May 20, 2004. See Note 11, Contingencies, for a discussion of this case.

Reynolds v. Philip Morris USA Inc., United States District Court, Southern District, California, filed September 20, 2005. In September 2005, a California consumer sued PM USA in a purported class action, alleging that PM USA violated certain California consumer protection laws in connection with alleged expiration of Marlboro Miles’ proofs of purchase, which could be used in accordance with the terms and conditions of certain time-limited promotions to acquire merchandise from Marlboro catalogues. PM USA’s motion to dismiss the case was denied in March 2006. In September 2006, PM USA filed a motion for summary judgment as to plaintiff’s claims for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. In October 2006, PM USA filed a second summary judgment motion seeking dismissal of plaintiff’s claims under certain California consumer protection statutes. Both of these motions are pending.

MSA-Related Cases

In the following case in which PM USA is a defendant, plaintiffs have challenged the validity of legislation implementing the MSA.

Sanders, et al. v. Philip Morris USA, Inc., et al., United States District Court, Northern District, California, filed June 9, 2004. Defendants’ motion to dismiss the case was granted in March 2005. Plaintiffs have appealed.

-9-

Exhibit 99.1

As discussed further in Note 11, Contingencies, there are other cases in a number of states in which plaintiffs have challenged the MSA and/or legislation implementing it, but PM USA is not a defendant in these cases.

Non-Participating Manufacturer Adjustment Proceedings

See Note 11, Contingencies, for a description of these proceedings.

Public Ban Cost Recovery Action

Municipality of Haifa v. Dubek Ltd., et al., District Court of Haifa, Israel, filed March 28, 2004. This case is pending against Menache H. Eliachar Ltd., which is an indemnitee of a subsidiary of PMI. The Municipality of Haifa seeks to recover the costs it incurred enforcing a public ban on smoking. The case was dismissed by the District Court of Haifa, and the plaintiff has appealed to the Israeli Supreme Court.

-10-

EX-99.2

Exhibit 99.2

TRIAL SCHEDULE FOR CERTAIN CASES

Below is a schedule setting forth by month the number of individual smoking and health cases against PM USA that are currently scheduled for trial through the end of 2007.

2007

August (2)
September (1)
October (1)
November (2)

-1-