XML 28 R18.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT  v2.3.0.11
Contingencies
 6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2011
Contingencies  
Contingencies

Note 11. Contingencies:

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

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

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 44 states now limit the dollar amount of bonds or require no bond at all. As discussed below, however, tobacco litigation plaintiffs have challenged the constitutionality of Florida's bond cap statute in several cases and plaintiffs may challenge other state bond cap statutes. Although we cannot predict the outcome of such challenges, it is possible that the consolidated results of operations, cash flows or financial position of Altria Group, Inc., or one or more of its subsidiaries, could be materially affected in a particular fiscal quarter or fiscal year by an unfavorable outcome of one or more such challenges.

Altria Group, Inc. and its subsidiaries record provisions in the consolidated financial statements for pending litigation when they determine that an unfavorable outcome is probable and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. At the present time, while it is reasonably possible that an unfavorable outcome in a case may occur, except as discussed elsewhere in this Note 11. Contingencies: (i) management has concluded that it is not probable that a loss has been incurred in any of the pending tobacco-related cases; (ii) management is unable to estimate the possible loss or range of loss that could result from an unfavorable outcome in any of the pending tobacco-related cases; and (iii) accordingly, management has not provided any amounts in the consolidated financial statements for unfavorable outcomes, if any. Legal defense costs are expensed as incurred.

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

 

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

Types and Number of Cases

Claims related to tobacco products generally fall within the following categories: (i) smoking and health cases alleging personal injury brought on behalf of individual plaintiffs; (ii) smoking and health cases primarily alleging personal injury or seeking court-supervised programs for ongoing medical monitoring and purporting to be brought on behalf of a class of individual plaintiffs, including cases in which the aggregated claims of a number of individual plaintiffs are to be tried in a single proceeding; (iii) health care cost recovery cases brought by governmental (both domestic and foreign) 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. Plaintiffs' theories of recovery and the defenses raised in pending smoking and health, health care cost recovery and "Lights/Ultra Lights" cases are discussed below.

The table below lists the number of certain tobacco-related cases pending in the United States against PM USA and, in some instances, Altria Group, Inc. as of July 25, 2011, July 26, 2010 and July 27, 2009.

 

Type of Case

    Number of Cases
Pending as of
July 25, 2011		      Number of Cases
Pending as of
July 26, 2010		      Number of Cases
Pending as of
July 27, 2009		  

Individual Smoking and Health Cases (1)

      81         83         96   

Smoking and Health Class Actions and Aggregated Claims Litigation (2)

      8         9         7   

Health Care Cost Recovery Actions

      2         3         3   

"Lights/Ultra Lights" Class Actions (3)

      19         29         29   

Tobacco Price Cases

      1         2         2   

 

(1) Does not include 2,588 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 (Broin). The terms of the court-approved settlement in that case allow class members to file individual lawsuits seeking compensatory damages, but prohibit them from seeking punitive damages. Certain Broin plaintiffs have filed a motion seeking approximately $50 million in sanctions for alleged interference by R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company ("R.J. Reynolds") and PM USA with Lorillard, Inc.'s acceptance of offers of settlement in the Broin progeny cases. On May 23, 2011, the trial court denied this motion. Plaintiffs have appealed.

Also, does not include approximately 6,613 individual smoking and health cases (3,327 state court cases and 3,286 federal court cases) brought by or on behalf of approximately 8,213 plaintiffs in Florida (4,928 state court plaintiffs and 3,285 federal court plaintiffs) following the decertification of the Engle case discussed below. It is possible that some of these cases are duplicates and that additional cases have been filed but not yet recorded on the courts' dockets.

 

(2)

Includes as one case the 638 civil actions (of which 366 are actions against PM USA) that are proposed to be tried in a single proceeding in West Virginia (In re: Tobacco Litigation). Middleton and USSTC were named as defendants in this action but they, along with other non-cigarette manufacturers, have been severed from this case. The West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals has ruled that the United States Constitution does not preclude a trial in two phases in this case. Under the current trial plan, issues related to defendants' conduct and plaintiffs' entitlement to punitive damages would be determined in the first phase. The second phase would consist of individual trials to determine liability, if any, as well as compensatory and punitive damages, if any. The case is currently scheduled for trial on October 17, 2011.

 

(3) Includes the Cabbat case, a "Lights" case filed in federal district court that was never served on PM USA. See "Lights/Ultra Lights" Cases – Federal Multidistrict Proceeding below for a discussion of this case.

International Tobacco-Related Cases

As of July 25, 2011, PM USA is a named defendant in Israel in one "Lights" class action. PM USA is a named defendant in four health care cost recovery actions in Canada, three of which also name Altria Group, Inc. as a defendant. PM USA and Altria Group, Inc. are also named defendants in six smoking and health class actions filed in various Canadian provinces. See Guarantees for a discussion of the Distribution Agreement between Altria Group, Inc. and PMI that provides for indemnities for certain liabilities concerning tobacco products.

Pending and Upcoming Tobacco-Related Trials

As of July 25, 2011, 13 Engle progeny cases and 4 individual smoking and health cases against PM USA are set for trial in 2011. Cases against other companies in the tobacco industry are also scheduled for trial in 2011. Trial dates are subject to change.

Trial Results

Since January 1999, excluding the Engle progeny cases (separately discussed below), verdicts have been returned in 49 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 33 of the 49 cases. These 33 cases were tried in California (5), Florida (9), Louisiana (1), Massachusetts (1), Mississippi (1), Missouri (3), New Hampshire (1), New Jersey (1), New York (4), Ohio (2), Pennsylvania (1), Rhode Island (1), Tennessee (2), and West Virginia (1). A motion for a new trial was granted in one of the cases in Florida.

Of the 16 non-Engle progeny cases in which verdicts were returned in favor of plaintiffs, twelve have reached final resolution and one case (Williams – see below) has reached partial resolution. A verdict against defendants in one health care cost recovery case (Blue Cross/Blue Shield) has been reversed and all claims were dismissed with prejudice. In addition, a verdict against defendants in a purported "Lights" class action in Illinois (Price) was reversed and the case was dismissed with prejudice in December 2006. In December 2008, the plaintiff in Price filed a motion with the state trial court to vacate the judgment dismissing this case in light of the United States Supreme Court's decision in Good (see below for a discussion of developments in Good and Price).

As of July 25, 2011, twenty-four Engle progeny cases involving PM USA have resulted in verdicts since the Florida Supreme Court's Engle decision. Thirteen verdicts were returned in favor of plaintiffs and eleven verdicts were returned in favor of PM USA. See Smoking and Health Litigation – Engle Progeny Trial Results below for a discussion of these verdicts.

 

After exhausting all appeals in those cases resulting in adverse verdicts (Engle progeny and non-Engle progeny), PM USA has paid judgments totaling $116.4 million and interest totaling $70.6 million.

The chart below lists the verdicts and post-trial developments in the non-Engle progeny cases that were pending during 2011 in which verdicts were returned in favor of plaintiffs. A chart listing the verdicts for plaintiffs in the Engle progeny cases can be found in Smoking and Health Litigation – Engle Progeny Trial Results.

 

Date   

Location of
Court/Name

of 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 Altria Group, Inc. and PM USA, violated the civil provisions of RICO. No monetary damages were assessed, but the court made specific findings and issued injunctions. See Federal Government's Lawsuit below.    See Federal Government's Lawsuit below.

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.    See Scott Class Action below.

October 2002

    California/ Bullock    Individual Smoking and Health    $850,000 in compensatory damages and $28 billion in punitive damages against PM USA.    See discussion (1) below.

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 October 2002, PM
            USA posted an appeal bond of approximately $58.3 million. In May 2006, the Oregon Court of Appeals affirmed the compensatory damages verdict, reversed the award of punitive damages and remanded the case to the trial court for a second trial to determine the amount of punitive damages, if any. In June 2006, plaintiff petitioned the Oregon Supreme Court to review the portion of the court of appeals' decision reversing and remanding the case for a new trial on punitive damages. In June 2010, the Oregon Supreme Court affirmed the court of appeals' decision and remanded the case to the trial court for a new trial limited to the question of punitive damages. In July 2010, plaintiff filed a petition for rehearing with the Oregon Supreme Court. In December 2010, the Oregon Supreme Court reaffirmed its earlier ruling, clarified that the only issue for retrial is the amount of punitive damages, if any, and awarded PM USA approximately $500,000 in costs. In
            January 2011, the trial court issued an order releasing PM USA's appeal bond. In March 2011, PM USA filed a claim against the plaintiff for its costs and disbursements on appeal, plus interest. Trial has been set for January 30, 2012.

March 1999

    Oregon/ Williams    Individual Smoking and Health    $800,000 in compensatory damages (capped statutorily at $500,000), $21,500 in medical expenses and $79.5 million in punitive damages against PM USA.    See discussion (2) below.

 

(1) Bullock: 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 damages award. In August 2006, the California Supreme Court denied plaintiffs' petition to overturn the trial court's reduction of the punitive damages award and granted PM USA's petition for review challenging the punitive damages award. The court granted review of the case on a "grant and hold" basis under which further action by the court was deferred pending the United States Supreme Court's 2007 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. In May 2007, the California Supreme Court transferred the case to the Second District of the California Court of Appeal with directions that the court vacate its 2006 decision and reconsider the case in light of the United States Supreme Court's decision in Williams. In January 2008, the California Court of Appeal reversed the judgment with respect to the $28 million punitive damages award, affirmed the judgment in all other respects, and remanded the case to the trial court to conduct a new trial on the amount of punitive damages. In March 2008, plaintiffs and PM USA appealed to the California Supreme Court. In April 2008, the California Supreme Court denied both petitions for review. In July 2008, $43.3 million of escrow funds were returned to PM USA. The case was remanded to the superior court for a new trial on the amount of punitive damages, if any. In August 2009, the jury returned a verdict, and in December 2009, the superior court entered a judgment, awarding plaintiff $13.8 million in punitive damages, plus costs. In December 2009, PM USA filed a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict that seeks a reduction of the punitive damages award, which motion was denied in January 2010. PM USA noticed an appeal in February 2010 and posted an appeal bond of approximately $14.7 million. Argument before the California Court of Appeal was

 

  heard on June 14, 2011. As of June 30, 2011, PM USA has recorded a provision of approximately $1.8 million for compensatory damages, costs and interest.

 

(2) Williams: The trial court reduced the punitive damages award to approximately $32 million, and PM USA and plaintiff appealed. In June 2002, the Oregon Court of Appeals reinstated the $79.5 million punitive damages award. 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. 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, 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. In January 2008, the Oregon Supreme Court affirmed the Oregon Court of Appeals' June 2004 decision, which in turn, upheld the jury's compensatory damages award and reinstated the jury's award of $79.5 million in punitive damages. In March 2008, PM USA filed a petition for writ of certiorari with the United States Supreme Court, which was granted in June 2008. In March 2009, the United States Supreme Court dismissed the writ of certiorari as being improvidently granted. Subsequent to the United States Supreme Court's dismissal, PM USA paid $61.1 million to the plaintiffs, representing the compensatory damages award, forty percent of the punitive damages award and accrued interest. Oregon state law requires that sixty percent of any punitive damages award be paid to the state. However, PM USA believes that, as a result of the Master Settlement Agreement ("MSA"), it is not liable for the sixty percent that would be paid to the state. Oregon and PM USA are parties to a proceeding in Oregon state court that seeks a determination of PM USA's liability for that sixty percent. If PM USA prevails, its obligation to pay punitive damages will be limited to the forty percent previously paid to the plaintiff. The court has consolidated that MSA proceeding with Williams, where plaintiff seeks to challenge the constitutionality of the Oregon statute apportioning the punitive damages award and claims that any punitive damages award released by the state reverts to plaintiff. In February 2010, the trial court ruled that the state is not entitled to collect its sixty percent share of the punitive damages award. In June 2010, after hearing argument, the trial court held that, under the Oregon statute, PM USA is not required to pay the sixty percent share to plaintiff. In October 2010, the trial court rejected plaintiff's argument that the Oregon statute regarding allocation of punitive damages is unconstitutional. The combined effect of these rulings is that PM USA would not be required to pay the state's sixty percent share of the punitive damages award. Both the plaintiff in Williams and the state appealed these rulings to the Oregon Court of Appeals. In December 2010, on its own motion, the Oregon Court of Appeals certified the appeals to the Oregon Supreme Court and the Oregon Supreme Court accepted certification. Argument on the merits of the appeals is set for September 19, 2011.

 

Security for Judgments

To obtain stays of judgments pending current appeals, as of June 30, 2011, PM USA has posted various forms of security totaling approximately $47 million, the majority of which has been collateralized with cash deposits that are included in other assets on the condensed consolidated balance sheets.

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.

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 judicial review, 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 was returned to PM USA in December 2007. In addition, the $100 million bond related to the case has been discharged. 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 defendants agreed to misrepresent information regarding the health effects or addictive nature of cigarettes with the intention of causing the public to rely on this information to their detriment;

 

(vi) that defendants agreed to conceal or omit information regarding the health effects of cigarettes or their addictive nature with the intention that smokers would rely on the information to their detriment; (vii) that all defendants sold or supplied cigarettes that were defective; and (viii) that defendants were negligent. The court also reinstated compensatory damages awards totaling approximately $6.9 million to two individual plaintiffs and found that a third plaintiff's claim was barred by the statute of limitations. In February 2008, PM USA paid a total of $2,964,685, which represents its share of compensatory damages and interest to the two individual plaintiffs identified in the Florida Supreme Court's order.

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

The deadline for filing Engle progeny cases, as required by the Florida Supreme Court's decision, expired in January 2008. As of July 25, 2011, approximately 6,613 cases (3,327 state court cases and 3,286 federal court cases) were pending against PM USA or Altria Group, Inc. asserting individual claims by or on behalf of approximately 8,213 plaintiffs (4,928 state court plaintiffs and 3,285 federal court plaintiffs). It is possible that some of these cases are duplicates. Some of these cases have been removed from various Florida state courts to the federal district courts in Florida, while others were filed in federal court. In July 2007, PM USA and other defendants requested that the multi-district litigation panel order the transfer of all such cases pending in the federal courts, as well as any other Engle progeny cases that may be filed, to the Middle District of Florida for pretrial coordination. The panel denied this request in December 2007. In October 2007, attorneys for plaintiffs filed a motion to consolidate all pending and future cases filed in the state trial court in Hillsborough County. The court denied this motion in November 2007. In February 2008, the trial court decertified the class except for purposes of the May 2001 bond stipulation, and formally vacated the punitive damages award pursuant to the Florida Supreme Court's mandate. In April 2008, the trial court ruled that certain defendants, including PM USA, lacked standing with respect to allocation of the funds escrowed under the May 2001 bond stipulation and will receive no credit at this time from the $500 million paid by PM USA against any future punitive damages awards in cases brought by former Engle class members.

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

 

Florida Supreme Court to permit members of the Engle class additional time to file individual lawsuits. The Florida Supreme Court denied this petition in January 2009.

Federal Engle Progeny Cases

Three federal district courts (in the Merlob, Brown and Burr cases) ruled that the findings in the first phase of the Engle proceedings cannot be used to satisfy elements of plaintiffs' claims, and two of those rulings (Brown and Burr) were certified by the trial court for interlocutory review. The certification in both cases was granted by the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit and the appeals were consolidated. In February 2009, the appeal in Burr was dismissed for lack of prosecution. In July 2010, the Eleventh Circuit ruled in Brown that, as a matter of Florida law, plaintiffs do not have an unlimited right to use the findings from the original Engle trial to meet their burden of establishing the elements of their claims at trial. The Eleventh Circuit did not reach the issue of whether the use of the Engle findings violates the defendants' due process rights. Rather, plaintiffs may only use the findings to establish those specific facts, if any, that they demonstrate with a reasonable degree of certainty were actually decided by the original Engle jury. The Eleventh Circuit remanded the case to the district court to determine what specific factual findings the Engle jury actually made. In the Burr case, PM USA filed a motion seeking a ruling from the district court regarding the preclusive effect of the Engle findings pursuant to the Eleventh Circuit's decision in Brown. On May 19, 2011, the district court denied that motion on procedural grounds.

Since the remand of Brown, the Eleventh Circuit's ruling on Florida state law is currently superseded by a state appellate ruling in Martin, an Engle progeny case against R.J. Reynolds in Escambia County. In Martin, the Florida First District Court of Appeals rejected the Brown ruling as a matter of state law and upheld the use of the Engle findings to relax plaintiffs' burden of proof. R. J. Reynolds had sought Florida Supreme Court review in that case but, on July 19, 2011, the Florida Supreme Court declined to hear the appeal. In the meantime, the federal courts are obliged to follow Martin, and not Brown, on the Florida law issue.

Engle progeny cases pending in the federal district courts in the Middle District of Florida asserting individual claims by or on behalf of approximately 3,200 plaintiffs remain stayed. There are currently 12 active cases pending in federal court.

Florida Bond Cap Statute

In June 2009, Florida amended its existing bond cap statute by adding a $200 million bond cap that applies to all Engle progeny lawsuits in the aggregate and establishes individual bond caps for individual Engle progeny cases in amounts that vary depending on the number of judgments in effect at a given time. The legislation, which became effective in June 2009, applies to judgments entered after the effective date and was set to expire on December 31, 2012. On May 26, 2011, Florida amended its bond cap statute to eliminate the statute's December 31, 2012 expiration date.

Plaintiffs in three Engle progeny cases against R.J. Reynolds in Alachua County, Florida (Alexander, Townsend and Hall) and one case in Escambia County (Clay) have challenged the constitutionality of the bond cap statute. The Florida Attorney General has intervened in these cases in defense of the constitutionality of the statute.

Trial court rulings have been rendered in Clay, Alexander, Townsend and Hall rejecting the plaintiffs' bond cap statute challenges in those cases. The plaintiffs have appealed these rulings. In Clay and Hall, the District Court of Appeals for the First District of Florida has affirmed the trial court decisions and has certified the decision in Hall for appeal to the Florida Supreme Court.

 

Engle Progeny Trial Results

As of July 25, 2011, twenty-four Engle progeny cases involving PM USA have resulted in verdicts since the Florida Supreme Court Engle decision. Thirteen verdicts (see Hess, Barbanell, F. Campbell, Naugle, Douglas, R. Cohen, Putney, Tate, Piendle, Hatziyannakis, Huish, Tullo and Allen descriptions in the table below) were returned in favor of plaintiffs and eleven verdicts were returned in favor of PM USA (Gelep, Kalyvas, Gil de Rubio, Warrick, Willis, Frazier, C. Campbell, Rohr, Espinosa, Oliva and Weingart). In addition, there have been a number of mistrials, only some of which have resulted in new trials as of July 25, 2011.

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

In October 2010, juries in five Engle progeny cases ( Warrick , Willis , Frazier , C. Campbell and Rohr ) returned verdicts in favor of PM USA. With the exception of Frazier , these cases have concluded.

In March 2011, the jury in the Oliva case returned a verdict in favor of PM USA. In April 2011, the trial court in the B. Allen case declared a mistrial after the jury failed to reach a verdict.

On July 19, 2011, the jury in the Weingart case returned a verdict in favor of PM USA.

The chart below lists the verdicts and post-trial developments in the Engle progeny cases that were pending during 2011 in which verdicts were returned in favor of plaintiffs.

 

Date    Plaintiff    Verdict    Post-Trial Developments

April 2011

    Allen    A Duval County jury returned a verdict in favor of plaintiffs and against PM USA and R.J. Reynolds. The jury awarded a total of $6 million in compensatory damages and allocated 15% of the fault to PM USA (an amount of $900,000). The jury also awarded $17 million in punitive damages against each of the defendants.    On May 6, 2011, the defendants filed various post-trial motions.

April 2011

    Tullo    A Palm Beach County jury returned a verdict in favor of plaintiff and against PM USA, Lorillard Tobacco Company and Liggett Group. The jury awarded a total of $4.5 million in compensatory damages and allocated 45% of the fault to PM USA (an amount of $2,025,000).    In April 2011, the trial court entered final judgment. On July 21, 2011, PM USA filed its notice of appeal.

February 2011

    Huish    An Alachua County jury returned a verdict in favor of plaintiff and against PM USA. The jury awarded    In March 2011, the trial court entered final judgment. PM USA filed post-trial motions, which
      $750,000 in compensatory damages and allocated 25% of the fault to PM USA (an amount of $187,500). The jury also awarded $1.5 million in punitive damages against PM USA.    were denied in April 2011. In May 2011, PM USA filed its notice of appeal and posted a $1.7 million appeal bond.
February 2011    Hatziyannakis    A Broward County jury returned a verdict in favor of plaintiff and against PM USA. The jury awarded approximately $270,000 in compensatory damages and allocated 32% of the fault to PM USA (an amount of approximately $86,000).    In April 2011, the trial court denied PM USA's post-trial motions for a new trial and to set aside the verdict. In June 2011, PM USA filed its notice of appeal and posted an $86,000 appeal bond.
August 2010    Piendle    A Palm Beach County jury returned a verdict in favor of plaintiff and against PM USA and R.J. Reynolds. The jury awarded $4 million in compensatory damages and allocated 27.5% of the fault to PM USA (an amount of approximately $1.1 million). The jury also awarded $90,000 in punitive damages against PM USA.    In September 2010, the trial court entered final judgment. In January 2011, the trial court denied the parties' post-trial motions. PM USA filed its notice of appeal and posted a $1.2 million appeal bond.
July 2010    Tate    A Broward County jury in the Tate trial returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff and against PM USA. The jury awarded $8 million in compensatory damages and allocated 64% of the fault to PM USA (an amount of approximately $5.1 million). The jury also awarded approximately $16.3 million in punitive damages against PM USA.    In August 2010, the trial court entered final judgment, and PM USA filed its notice of appeal and posted a $5 million appeal bond.
April 2010    Putney    A Broward County jury in the Putney trial returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff and against PM USA, R.J. Reynolds and Liggett Group. The jury awarded approximately $15.1 million in compensatory damages and allocated 15% of the fault to PM USA (an amount of approximately $2.3 million). The jury also    In August 2010, the trial court entered final judgment. PM USA filed its notice of appeal and posted a $1.6 million appeal bond.
      awarded $2.5 million in punitive damages against PM USA.   
March 2010    R. Cohen    A Broward County jury in the R. Cohen trial returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff and against PM USA and R.J. Reynolds. The jury awarded $10 million in compensatory damages and allocated 33 1/3% of the fault to PM USA (an amount of approximately $3.3 million). The jury also awarded a total of $20 million in punitive damages, assessing separate $10 million awards against each defendant.    In July 2010, the trial court entered final judgment and, in August 2010, PM USA filed its notice of appeal. In October 2010, PM USA posted a $2.5 million appeal bond.
March 2010    Douglas    The jury in the Douglas trial (conducted in Hillsborough County) returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff and against PM USA, R.J. Reynolds and Liggett Group. The jury awarded $5 million in compensatory damages. Punitive damages were dismissed prior to trial. The jury allocated 18% of the fault to PM USA, resulting in an award of $900,000.    In June 2010, PM USA filed its notice of appeal and posted a $900,000 appeal bond. In September 2010, the plaintiff filed with the trial court a challenge to the constitutionality of the Florida bond cap statute.
November 2009    Naugle    A Broward County jury in the Naugle trial returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff and against PM USA. The jury awarded approximately $56.6 million in compensatory damages and $244 million in punitive damages. The jury allocated 90% of the fault to PM USA.    In March 2010, the trial court entered final judgment reflecting a reduced award of approximately $13 million in compensatory damages and $26 million in punitive damages. In April 2010, PM USA filed its notice of appeal and posted a $5 million appeal bond. In August 2010, upon the motion of PM USA, the trial court entered an amended final judgment of approximately $12.3 million in compensatory damages and approximately $24.5 million in punitive damages to correct a clerical error. The case remains on appeal.
August    F. Campbell    The jury in the F. Campbell trial    In January 2010, defendants

 

Date    Plaintiff    Verdict    Post-Trial Developments
2009       (conducted in Escambia County) returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff and against R.J. Reynolds, PM USA and Liggett Group. The jury awarded $7.8 million in compensatory damages. In September 2009, the trial court entered final judgment and awarded the plaintiff $156,000 in damages against PM USA due to the jury allocating only 2% of the fault to PM USA.    filed their notice of appeal, and PM USA posted a $156,000 appeal bond. In March 2011, the Florida First District Court of Appeals affirmed per curiam (with citation) the trial court's decision without issuing an opinion. PM USA's motion to certify its decision to the Florida Supreme Court as a matter of public importance was denied by the Court of Appeals on May 13, 2011. On June 13, 2011, PM USA filed a petition for discretionary review with the Florida Supreme Court, and on June 24, 2011, the Florida Supreme Court stayed the case pending its disposition of the Martin case against R. J. Reynolds described above and below. On July 19, 2011, the Florida Supreme Court declined to hear R.J. Reynolds' appeal in Martin and, on July 21, 2011, declined to hear PM USA's appeal in Campbell.
August 2009    Barbanell    A Broward County jury in the Barbanell trial returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, awarding $5.3 million in compensatory damages. The judge had previously dismissed the punitive damages claim. In September 2009, the trial court entered final judgment and awarded plaintiff $1.95 million in actual damages. The judgment reduced the jury's $5.3 million award of compensatory damages due to the jury allocating 36.5% of the fault to PM USA.    A notice of appeal was filed by PM USA in September 2009, and PM USA posted a $1.95 million appeal bond. Argument on the merits of the appeal is set for September 7, 2011.
February 2009    Hess    A Broward County jury in the Hess trial found in favor of plaintiffs and against PM USA. The jury awarded $3 million in compensatory damages and $5 million in punitive damages. In June 2009, the trial    PM USA noticed an appeal to the Fourth District Court of Appeal in July 2009. In April 2010, the trial court signed an order releasing a previously posted bond pursuant to an
Date    Plaintiff    Verdict    Post-Trial Developments
            court entered final judgment and awarded
plaintiffs $1,260,000 in actual damages and
$5 million in punitive damages. The
judgment reduced the jury's $3 million
award of compensatory damages due to the
jury allocating 42% of the fault to PM USA.		    agreement between the parties. The case
remains on appeal to the Florida District
Court of Appeals for the Fourth District.
Argument was heard in March 2011.

Appeals of Engle Progeny Verdicts

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

In December 2010, in the Martin case against R.J. Reynolds, the Florida First District Court of Appeals issued the first ruling by a Florida intermediate appellate court to substantively address the Brown decision of the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. The state district court of appeals affirmed the final judgment entered in plaintiff's favor imposing both compensatory and punitive damages. The panel held that the trial court correctly construed the Florida Supreme Court's 2006 decision in Engle in instructing the jury on the preclusive effect of the first phase of the Engle proceedings, expressly disagreeing with certain aspects of the Brown decision. In February 2011, the state district court of appeals denied R.J. Reynolds' request for en banc review and certification of the appeal to the Florida Supreme Court. In March 2011, R.J. Reynolds filed a petition for discretionary review with the Florida Supreme Court, which was denied on July 19, 2011.

Other Smoking and Health Class Actions

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

Class certification has been denied or reversed by courts in 60 smoking and health class actions involving PM USA in Arkansas (1), California (2), the District of Columbia (2), Florida (2), Illinois (3), Iowa (1), Kansas (1), Louisiana (1), Maryland (1), Michigan (1), Minnesota (1), Nevada (29), New Jersey (6), New York (2), Ohio (1), Oklahoma (1), Pennsylvania (1), Puerto Rico (1), South Carolina (1), Texas (1) and Wisconsin (1).

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

 

Scott Class Action

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. PM USA's share of the jury award and prejudgment interest was not 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. 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 ($12.5 million of which was posted by PM USA).

In February 2007, the Louisiana Fourth Circuit 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 included in 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 the case 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. In January 2008, the Louisiana Supreme Court denied plaintiffs' and defendants' petitions for writ of certiorari. In March 2008, plaintiffs filed a motion to execute the approximately $279 million judgment plus post-judgment interest or, in the alternative, for an order to the parties to submit revised damages figures. Defendants filed a motion to have judgment entered in favor of defendants based on accrual of all class member claims after September 1, 1988 or, in the alternative, for the entry of a case management order. In April 2008, the Louisiana Supreme Court denied defendants' motion to stay proceedings and the defendants filed a petition for writ of certiorari with the United States Supreme Court. In June 2008, the United States Supreme Court denied the defendants' petition. Plaintiffs filed a motion to enter judgment in the amount of approximately $280 million (subsequently changed to approximately $264 million) and defendants filed a motion to enter judgment in their favor dismissing the case entirely or, alternatively, to enter a case management order for a new trial. In July 2008, the trial court entered an Amended Judgment and Reasons for Judgment denying both motions, but ordering defendants to deposit into the registry of the court the sum of $263,532,762 plus post-judgment interest.

In September 2008, defendants filed an application for writ of mandamus or supervisory writ to secure the right to appeal with the Louisiana Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal, and in December 2008, the trial court entered an order permitting the appeal and approving a $50 million bond for all defendants in accordance with the Louisiana bond cap law discussed above. In April 2009, plaintiffs filed a cross-appeal seeking to reinstate the June 2004 judgment and to award the medical monitoring rejected by the jury.

 

In April 2010, the Louisiana Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal issued a decision that affirmed in part prior decisions ordering the defendants to fund a statewide 10-year smoking cessation program. In its decision, the Court of Appeal amended and, as amended, affirmed the amended 2008 trial court judgment and ruled that, although the trial court erred, the defendants have no right to a trial to determine, among other things, those class members with valid claims not barred by Louisiana law. After conducting its own independent review of the record, the Court of Appeal made its own factual findings with respect to liability and the amount owed, lowering the amount of the judgment to approximately $241 million, plus interest commencing July 21, 2008, the date of entry of the amended judgment (which as of June 30, 2011 is approximately $36 million). In its decision, the Court of Appeal disallowed approximately $80 million in post-judgment interest. In addition, the Court of Appeal declined plaintiffs' cross appeal requests for a medical monitoring program and reinstatement of other components of the smoking cessation program. The Court of Appeal specifically reserved to the defendants the right to assert claims to any unspent or unused surplus funds at the termination of the smoking cessation program. In June 2010, defendants and plaintiffs filed separate writ of certiorari applications with the Louisiana Supreme Court. The Louisiana Supreme Court denied both sides' applications. In September 2010, upon defendants' application, the United States Supreme Court granted a stay of the judgment pending the defendants' filing and the Court's disposition of the defendants' petition for a writ of certiorari. The defendants filed their petition for a writ of certiorari in December 2010. On June 27, 2011, the United States Supreme Court denied the defendants' petition.

Arrangements are now being made for PM USA to pay its share of the judgment. As of March 31, 2011, PM USA had recorded a provision of $26 million in connection with the case and had recorded additional provisions of approximately $3.7 million related to accrued interest. After the United States Supreme Court denial of defendants' petition for certiorari, PM USA recorded an additional provision of approximately $36 million related to the judgment and approximately $5 million related to interest. As of June 30, 2011, PM USA has recorded a total of approximately $71 million in connection with the case.

Other Medical Monitoring Class Actions

In addition to the Scott class action discussed above, three purported medical monitoring class actions are pending against PM USA. A fourth case (Xavier) was recently dismissed. These cases were brought in New York (Caronia, filed in January 2006 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York), Massachusetts (Donovan, filed in December 2006 in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts), California (Xavier, filed in May 2010 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California), and Florida (Gargano, filed in November 2010 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida) on behalf of each state's respective residents who: are age 50 or older; have smoked the Marlboro brand for 20 pack-years or more; and have neither been diagnosed with lung cancer nor are under investigation by a physician for suspected lung cancer. Plaintiffs in these cases seek to impose liability under various product-based causes of action and the creation of a court-supervised program providing members of the purported class Low Dose CT Scanning in order to identify and diagnose lung cancer. Plaintiffs in these cases do not seek punitive damages.

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

 

In Donovan, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, in answering questions certified to it by the district court, held in October 2009 that under certain circumstances state law recognizes a claim by individual smokers for medical monitoring despite the absence of an actual injury. The court also ruled that whether or not the case is barred by the applicable statute of limitations is a factual issue to be determined by the trial court. The case was remanded to federal court for further proceedings. In June 2010, the district court granted in part the plaintiffs' motion for class certification, certifying the class as to plaintiffs' claims for breach of implied warranty and violation of the Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act, but denying certification as to plaintiffs' negligence claim. In July 2010, PM USA petitioned the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit for appellate review of the class certification decision. The petition was denied in September 2010. As a remedy, plaintiffs have proposed a 28-year medical monitoring program with an approximate cost of $190 million. In April 2011, plaintiffs moved to amend their class certification to extend the cut-off date for individuals to satisfy the class membership criteria from December 14, 2006 to August 1, 2011. The district court granted this motion on May 3, 2011. Trial has been postponed. On June 20, 2011, plaintiffs filed various motions for summary judgment and to strike affirmative defenses.

In Xavier, in October 2010, the trial court granted PM USA's motion to dismiss plaintiffs' unfair competition claim and independent medical monitoring cause of action. In February 2011, plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification, and PM USA filed various motions, including several motions for summary judgment. In April 2011, the district court denied PM USA's motion for judgment on the pleadings, granted in part PM USA's motion for summary judgment and denied plaintiffs' motion for class certification. Plaintiffs petitioned the United States Court of Appeal for the Ninth Circuit for permission to appeal the trial court's order denying class certification. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal issued an order declining to hear plaintiffs' appeal on June 29, 2011. On July 5, 2011, plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their case, concluding this litigation.

In Gargano, PM USA filed a motion to dismiss in December 2010. In January 2011, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint with the trial court's permission. In February 2011, PM USA filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. The district court granted this motion on June 21, 2011, with leave for plaintiffs to replead. On July 11, 2011, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint.

Evolving medical standards and practices could have an impact on the defense of medical monitoring claims. For example, the first publication of the findings of the National Cancer Institute's National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) in June 2011 reported a 20% reduction in lung cancer deaths among certain long term smokers receiving Low Dose CT Scanning for lung cancer. It is possible that some agencies and organizations could consider lung cancer screening recommendations based on these and other findings.

Health Care Cost Recovery Litigation

Overview

In health care cost recovery litigation, 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 eight state appellate courts, relying primarily on grounds that plaintiffs' claims were too remote, have ordered or affirmed dismissals of health care cost recovery actions. The United States Supreme Court has refused to consider plaintiffs' appeals from the cases decided by five circuit courts of appeals.

In 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).

In the health care cost recovery case brought by the City of St. Louis, Missouri and approximately 40 Missouri hospitals, in which PM USA is a defendant (City of St. Louis), the trial court in July 2010, granted defendants' motion for summary judgment with respect to certain of plaintiffs' claims on the grounds that they were preempted. The court had earlier denied a number of other summary judgment motions by defendants and denied plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment claiming collateral estoppel from the findings in the case brought by the Department of Justice (see Federal Government's Lawsuit described below). The court also had previously granted defendants' motion for partial summary judgment on plaintiffs' claim for future damages (although in November 2010, the trial court ruled that the damages period for the case would extend through December 31, 2010). In September 2010, the trial court denied several of defendants' summary judgment motions, but granted defendants' motion seeking to prevent plaintiffs from recovering the "present value" of their damages, which are alleged to amount to approximately $300 million. In October 2010, the trial court granted defendants summary judgment with respect to plaintiffs' fraud and negligent misrepresentation claims. On April 8, 2011, USSTC and Altria Group, Inc. were dismissed from the case. On April 29, 2011, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the defendants on all counts. On June 10, 2011, the parties to the litigation and the trial court entered into a consent judgment pursuant to which the plaintiffs waived all rights to appeal in exchange for the defendants' waiver of any claim for costs. This litigation has now concluded.

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

In addition to the cases brought in the United States, health care cost recovery actions have also been brought against tobacco industry participants, including PM USA and Altria Group, Inc., in Israel (1), the

 

Marshall Islands (dismissed), and Canada (4), and other entities have stated that they are considering filing such actions. In the case in Israel, the defendants' appeal of the district court's denial of their motion to dismiss was heard by the Israel Supreme Court in March 2005. On July 13, 2011, the Israel Supreme Court reversed the trial court's decision and dismissed the case. The plaintiff has advised that it intends to file a motion for rehearing. In September 2005, in the first of the four health care cost recovery cases filed in Canada, the Canadian Supreme Court ruled that legislation passed in British Columbia permitting the lawsuit is constitutional, and, as a result, the case, which had previously been dismissed by the trial court, was permitted to proceed. PM USA's and other defendants' challenge to the British Columbia court's exercise of jurisdiction was rejected by the Court of Appeals of British Columbia and, in April 2007, the Supreme Court of Canada denied review of that decision. In December 2009, the Court of Appeals of British Columbia ruled that certain defendants can proceed against the Federal Government of Canada as third parties on the theory that the Federal Government of Canada negligently misrepresented to defendants the efficacy of a low tar tobacco variety that the Federal Government of Canada developed and licensed to defendants. In May 2010, the Supreme Court of Canada granted leave to the Federal Government of Canada to appeal this decision and leave to defendants to cross-appeal the Court of Appeals' decision to dismiss claims against the Federal Government of Canada based on other theories of liability. The Supreme Court of Canada heard the appeal in February 2011. During 2008, the Province of New Brunswick, Canada, proclaimed into law previously adopted legislation allowing reimbursement claims to be brought against cigarette manufacturers, and it filed suit shortly thereafter. In September 2009, the Province of Ontario, Canada, filed suit against a number of cigarette manufacturers based on previously adopted legislation nearly identical in substance to the New Brunswick health care cost recovery legislation. In February 2011, the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador filed a case substantially similar to the ones brought by New Brunswick and Ontario. PM USA is named as a defendant in the British Columbia case, while Altria Group, Inc. and PM USA are named as defendants in the New Brunswick, Ontario and Newfoundland cases. Several other provinces and territories in Canada have enacted similar legislation or are in the process of enacting similar legislation. See Guarantees for a discussion of the Distribution Agreement between Altria Group, Inc. and PMI that provides for indemnities for certain liabilities concerning tobacco products.

Settlements of Health Care Cost Recovery Litigation

In November 1998, PM USA and certain other United States tobacco product manufacturers entered into the 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 of approximately $9.4 billion each year, subject to adjustments for several factors, including inflation, market share and industry volume. In addition, the original participating manufacturers are required to pay settling plaintiffs' attorneys' fees, subject to an annual cap of $500 million. For the three months ended June 30, 2011 and June 30, 2010, the aggregate amount recorded in cost of sales with respect to the State Settlement Agreements and the Fair and Equitable Tobacco Reform Act of 2004 ("FETRA") was approximately $1.3 billion and $1.2 billion, respectively. For the six months ended June 30, 2011 and June 30, 2010, the aggregate amount recorded in cost of sales with respect to the State Settlement Agreements and FETRA was approximately $2.4 billion for each period.

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 to 2010

Pursuant to the provisions of the MSA, domestic tobacco product manufacturers, including PM USA, who are original signatories to the MSA (the "Original Participating Manufacturers" or "OPMs") are participating in proceedings that may result in downward adjustments to the amounts paid by the OPMs and the other MSA-participating manufacturers to the states and territories that are parties to the MSA for each of the years 2003 to 2009. The proceedings relate to an MSA payment adjustment (the "NPM Adjustment") based on the collective loss of market share for the relevant year by all participating manufacturers who are subject to the payment obligations and marketing restrictions of the MSA to non-participating manufacturers ("NPMs") who are not subject to such obligations and restrictions.

As part of these proceedings, an independent economic consulting firm jointly selected by the MSA parties or otherwise selected pursuant to the MSA's provisions is required to determine whether the disadvantages of the MSA were a "significant factor" contributing to the participating manufacturers' collective loss of market share for the year in question. If the firm determines that the disadvantages of the MSA were such a "significant factor," each state may avoid a downward adjustment to its share of the participating manufacturers' annual payments for that year by establishing that it diligently enforced a qualifying escrow statute during the entirety of that year. Any potential downward adjustment would then be reallocated to any 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.

An independent economic consulting firm, jointly selected by the MSA parties, determined that the disadvantages of the MSA were a significant factor contributing to the participating manufacturers' collective loss of market share for each of the years 2003 – 2005. A different independent economic consulting firm, jointly selected by the MSA parties, determined that the disadvantages of the MSA were a significant factor contributing to the participating manufacturers' collective loss of market share for the year 2006. Following the determination for 2006, the OPMs and the states agreed that the states would not contest that the disadvantages of the MSA were a significant factor contributing to the participating manufacturers' collective loss of market share for the years 2007, 2008 and 2009. Accordingly, the OPMs and the states have agreed that no "significant factor" determination by an independent economic consulting firm will be necessary with respect to the participating manufacturers' collective loss of market share for the years 2007, 2008 and 2009. This agreement became effective for 2007 and 2008 on February 1, 2010 and February 1, 2011, respectively, and will become effective for 2009 on February 1, 2012. The MSA's Independent Auditor has determined that the participating manufacturers collectively lost market share for 2010. A proceeding before an economic consulting firm with respect to a "significant factor" determination for the loss of market share for 2010 cannot be commenced until April 2012.

Following the "significant factor" 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 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 did not file declaratory judgment actions. Courts in all but one of the forty-six MSA states and the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico have ruled that the question of whether a state diligently enforced its escrow statute during 2003 is subject to arbitration. Several of these rulings may be subject to further review. One state court (in State of Montana) has ruled that the diligent enforcement claims of that state may be litigated in state court, rather than in arbitration. In January 2010, the OPMs filed a petition for a writ of certiorari in the United States Supreme Court seeking further review of the Montana decision holding that a state's diligent enforcement claims may be litigated in state court, rather than in arbitration. The petition was denied in June 2010. Following the denial of this

 

petition, Montana renewed an action in its state court seeking a declaratory judgment that it diligently enforced its escrow statute during 2003 and other relief. The OPMs moved to stay that action and in January 2011 the state court granted the OPMs' motion. Montana has filed a petition in the Montana Supreme Court requesting that the stay be lifted. The petition was granted on May 24, 2011, and the case is now proceeding in the trial court.

PM USA, the other OPMs and approximately twenty-five other MSA-participating manufacturers have entered into an agreement regarding arbitration with forty-five MSA states concerning the 2003 NPM Adjustment, including the states' claims of diligent enforcement for 2003. The agreement further provides for a partial liability reduction for the 2003 NPM Adjustment for states that entered into the agreement by January 30, 2009 and are determined in the arbitration not to have diligently enforced a qualifying escrow statute during 2003. Based on the number of states that entered into the agreement by January 30, 2009 (forty-five), the partial liability reduction for those states is 20%. The partial liability reduction would reduce the amount of PM USA's 2003 NPM Adjustment by up to a corresponding percentage. The selection of the arbitration panel for the 2003 NPM Adjustment was completed in July 2010, and the arbitration is currently ongoing. Proceedings to determine state diligent enforcement claims for the years 2004 through 2009 have not yet been scheduled.

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

 

Year for which NPM Adjustment calculated

      2003        2004        2005        2006        2007        2008        2009  

Year in which deduction for NPM Adjustment may be taken

      2006         2007         2008         2009         2010         2011         2012   

PM USA's Approximate Share of Disputed NPM Adjustment (in millions)

    $ 337       $ 388       $ 181       $ 154       $ 207       $ 267       $ 211   
                                                              

 

As indicated above, the MSA's Independent Auditor has determined that the participating manufacturers have collectively lost market share for 2010, but a significant factor proceeding for a 2010 NPM Adjustment cannot be commenced until April 2012. Based on the Independent Auditor's current calculations, the approximate maximum principal amount of PM USA's share of any NPM Adjustment for 2010 would be $209 million.

The foregoing amounts may be recalculated by the Independent Auditor if it receives information that is different from or in addition to the information on which it based these calculations, including, among other things, if it receives revised sales volumes from any participating manufacturer. Disputes among the manufacturers could also reduce the foregoing amounts. The availability and the precise amount of any NPM Adjustment for 2003-2010 will not be finally determined until 2012 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, and the amount of any adjustment received for a year could be less than the amount for that year listed above. If the OPMs do receive such an adjustment through these proceedings, the adjustment would be allocated among the OPMs pursuant to the MSA's provisions. It is expected that PM USA would receive its share of any adjustments for 2003-2007 in the form of a credit against future MSA payments and its share of any adjustment for 2008 in the form of a withdrawal from the disputed payments account.

PM USA intends to pursue vigorously the disputed NPM Adjustments for 2003-2010 through the proceedings described above. PM USA would be willing, however, to enter into a settlement of those disputed NPM adjustments if it determined that such a settlement were in its best interests.

Other MSA-Related Litigation

PM USA was named as a defendant in an action (Vibo) brought in October 2008 in federal court in Kentucky by an MSA participating manufacturer that is not an OPM. Other defendants include various other participating manufacturers and the Attorneys General of all 52 states and territories that are parties to the MSA. The plaintiff alleged that certain of the MSA's payment provisions discriminate against it in favor of certain other participating manufacturers in violation of the federal antitrust laws and the United States Constitution. The plaintiff also sought injunctive relief, alteration of certain MSA payment provisions as applied to it, treble damages under the federal antitrust laws, and/or rescission of its joinder in the MSA. The plaintiff also filed a motion for a preliminary injunction enjoining the states from enforcing the allegedly discriminatory payment provisions against it during the pendency of the action. In January 2009, the district court dismissed the complaint and denied plaintiff's request for preliminary injunctive relief. In January 2010, the court entered final judgment dismissing the case. Plaintiff has appealed this decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.

Without naming PM USA or any other private party as a defendant, NPMs and/or their distributors or customers have filed several legal challenges to the MSA and related legislation. New York state officials were defendants in a lawsuit (Freedom Holdings) filed 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 (Pryor), 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 Freedom Holdings, the trial court granted summary judgment for the New York officials and lifted a preliminary injunction against New York officials' enforcement against plaintiffs of the state's "allocable share" amendment to the

 

MSA's Model Escrow Statute. The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed that decision in October 2010. Plaintiffs' petition before the United States Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari was denied in March 2011. The Freedom Holdings litigation has thus concluded. On remand in Pryor, the trial court held that plaintiffs are unlikely to succeed on the merits and refused to enjoin the enforcement of New York's allocable share amendment to the MSA's Model Escrow Statute. That decision was affirmed by the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The parties in that case have filed cross-motions for summary judgment, and the trial court heard oral argument on those motions in April 2010. In March 2011, the Pryor trial court granted summary judgment on all claims for the New York state officials. Plaintiffs have filed a motion to modify the judgment and a notice of appeal.

In another action (Xcaliber), 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. On remand in that case, and in another case filed against the Louisiana Attorney General (S&M Brands), the trial courts granted summary judgment for the Louisiana Attorney General. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed those judgments in decisions issued in July 2010 and August 2010. Plaintiffs in the S&M Brands case filed a petition for a writ of certiorari in the United States Supreme Court in November 2010, which petition was denied in March 2011. The Xcaliber and S&M Brands cases are both now concluded.

In addition to the Second and Fifth Circuit decisions above, the United States Courts of Appeals for the Sixth, Eighth, Ninth and Tenth Circuits have affirmed dismissals or grants of summary judgment in favor of state officials in four other cases asserting antitrust and constitutional challenges to the allocable share amendment legislation in those states.

Another proceeding (Grand River) had been initiated before an international arbitration tribunal under the provisions of the North American Free Trade Agreement. A hearing on the merits concluded in February 2010. In January 2011, the arbitration tribunal rejected the claims against the United States challenging MSA-related legislation in various states. This litigation has concluded.

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 Altria Group, Inc. asserting claims under three federal statutes, namely the Medical Care Recovery Act ("MCRA"), the MSP provisions of the Social Security Act and the civil provisions of RICO. Trial of the case ended in June 2005. The lawsuit sought to recover an unspecified amount of health care costs for tobacco-related illnesses allegedly caused by defendants' fraudulent and tortious conduct and paid for by the government under various federal health care programs, including Medicare, military and veterans' health benefits programs, and the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program. The complaint alleged that such costs total more than $20 billion annually. It also sought what it alleged to be equitable and declaratory relief, including disgorgement of profits 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 Altria Group, Inc. 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;

 

  •  

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 one cigarette brand is less hazardous than another brand; (v) the issuance of "corrective statements" in various media regarding the adverse health effects of smoking, the addictiveness of smoking and nicotine, the lack of any significant health benefit from smoking "low tar" or "light" cigarettes, defendants' manipulation of cigarette design to ensure optimum nicotine delivery and the adverse health effects of exposure to environmental tobacco smoke; (vi) the disclosure on defendants' public document websites and in the Minnesota document repository of all documents produced to the government in the lawsuit or produced in any future court or administrative action concerning smoking and health until 2021, with certain additional requirements as to documents withheld from production under a claim of privilege or confidentiality; (vii) the disclosure of disaggregated marketing data to the government in the same form and on the same schedule as defendants now follow in disclosing such data to the Federal Trade Commission ("FTC") for a period of ten years; (viii) certain restrictions on the sale or transfer by defendants of any cigarette brands, brand names, formulas or cigarette businesses within the United States; and (ix) payment of the government's costs in bringing the action.

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

 

  •  

its application to defendants' subsidiaries;

 

  •  

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

 

  •  

its point-of-sale display provisions; and

 

  •  

its application to Brown & Williamson Holdings.

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

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

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

In December 2010, the trial court issued an order that, among other things, confirmed that the Council for Tobacco Research and the Tobacco Institute are dismissed from the case. In February 2011, the government submitted its proposed corrective statements and the trial court referred issues relating to a document repository to a special master. In March 2011, the defendants filed a response to the government's proposed corrective statements and filed a motion to vacate the trial court's injunction in light of the FSPTCA. In April 2011, the defendants filed a motion on the exclusivity of the court's jurisdiction to enforce the injunction.

On June 1, 2011, the trial court denied the defendants' motion to vacate the trial court's injunction in light of the FSPTCA. The defendants have appealed the trial court's ruling to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. On June 22, 2011, the trial court denied defendants' motion on the exclusivity of the court's jurisdiction to enforce the injunction.

"Lights/Ultra Lights" Cases

Overview

Plaintiffs in certain pending matters seek certification of their cases as class actions and allege, among other things, that the uses of the terms "Lights" and/or "Ultra Lights" constitute deceptive and unfair trade practices, common law 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, Altria Group, Inc. or its subsidiaries, on behalf of individuals who purchased and consumed various brands of cigarettes, including Marlboro Lights , Marlboro Ultra Lights , Virginia Slims Lights and Superslims , Merit Lights and Cambridge Lights . Defenses raised in these cases include lack of misrepresentation, lack of causation, injury, and damages, the statute of limitations, express preemption by the Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act ("FCLAA") and implied preemption by the policies and directives of the FTC, non-liability under state statutory provisions exempting conduct that complies with federal regulatory directives, and the First Amendment. As of July 25, 2011, a total of nineteen such cases were pending in the United States. Four of these cases, as well as a fifth case (Cabbat) that was never served, were pending in a multidistrict litigation proceeding in a single U.S. federal court as discussed below. The other cases were pending in various U.S. state courts. In addition, a purported "Lights" class action is pending against PM USA in Israel. Other entities have stated that they are considering filing such actions against Altria Group, Inc. and PM USA.

In the one "Lights" case pending in Israel, hearings on plaintiffs' motion for class certification were held in November and December 2008. An additional hearing on class certification is scheduled for November 2011. See Guarantees for a discussion of the Distribution Agreement between Altria Group, Inc. and PMI that provides for indemnities for certain liabilities concerning tobacco products.

 

The Good Case

In May 2006, a federal trial court in Maine granted PM USA's motion for summary judgment in Good, a purported "Lights" class action, on the grounds that plaintiffs' claims are preempted by the FCLAA and dismissed the case. In August 2007, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit vacated the district court's grant of PM USA's motion for summary judgment on federal preemption grounds and remanded the case to district court. The district court stayed the case pending the United States Supreme Court's ruling on defendants' petition for writ of certiorari with the United States Supreme Court, which was granted in January 2008. The case was stayed pending the United States Supreme Court's decision. In December 2008, the United States Supreme Court ruled that plaintiffs' claims are not barred by federal preemption. Although the Court rejected the argument that the FTC's actions were so extensive with respect to the descriptors that the state law claims were barred as a matter of federal law, the Court's decision was limited: it did not address the ultimate merits of plaintiffs' claim, the viability of the action as a class action, or other state law issues. The case was returned to the federal court in Maine and consolidated with other federal cases in the multidistrict litigation proceeding discussed below. On June 22, 2011, the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the case without prejudice after the district court denied plaintiffs' motion for class certification.

Federal Multidistrict Proceeding

Since the December 2008 United States Supreme Court decision in Good, and through July 25, 2011, twenty-four purported "Lights" class actions were served upon PM USA and, in certain cases, Altria Group, Inc. These cases were filed in 14 states, the U.S. Virgin Islands and the District of Columbia. All of these cases either were filed in federal court or were removed to federal court by PM USA.

A number of purported "Lights" class actions were transferred and consolidated by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ("JPMDL") before the United States District Court for the District of Maine for pretrial proceedings ("MDL proceeding"). These cases, and the states in which each originated, included: Biundo (Illinois), Calistro (U.S. Virgin Islands), Corse (Tennessee), Domaingue (New York), Good (Maine), Haubrich (Pennsylvania), McClure (Tennessee), Mirick (Mississippi), Mulford (New Mexico), Parsons (District of Columbia), Phillips (Ohio), Slater (District of Columbia), Tang (New York), Tyrer (California), Williams (Arkansas) and Wyatt (Wisconsin).

In November 2010, the district court in the MDL proceeding denied plaintiffs' motion for class certification in four cases, covering the jurisdictions of California, the District of Columbia, Illinois and Maine. These jurisdictions were selected by the parties as sample cases, with two selected by plaintiffs and two selected by defendants. Plaintiffs sought appellate review of this decision but, in February 2011, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit denied plaintiffs' petition for leave to appeal. On June 22, 2011, plaintiffs in twelve cases voluntarily dismissed their cases. Plaintiffs in five cases (McClure, Phillips, Tang, Wyatt and Cabbat (a case that was never served on PM USA)) have requested the transfer of their cases back to the courts in which the suits originated.

"Lights" Cases Dismissed, Not Certified or Ordered De-Certified

To date, in addition to the district court in the MDL proceeding, 15 courts in 16 "Lights" cases have refused to certify class actions, dismissed class action allegations, reversed prior class certification decisions or have entered judgment in favor of PM USA.

Trial courts in Arizona, Illinois, Kansas, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Tennessee and Washington have refused to grant class certification or have dismissed plaintiffs' class action allegations. Plaintiffs

 

voluntarily dismissed a case in Michigan after a trial court dismissed the claims plaintiffs asserted under the Michigan Unfair Trade and Consumer Protection Act.

Several appellate courts have issued rulings that either affirmed rulings in favor of Altria Group, Inc. and/or PM USA or reversed rulings entered in favor of plaintiffs. In Florida, an intermediate appellate court overturned an order by a trial court that granted class certification in Hines. The Florida Supreme Court denied review in January 2008. The Supreme Court of Illinois has overturned a judgment that awarded damages to a certified class in the Price case. See The Price Case below for further discussion. In Louisiana, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit dismissed a purported "Lights" class action brought in Louisiana federal court (Sullivan) on the grounds that plaintiffs' claims were preempted by the FCLAA. In New York, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit overturned a decision by a New York trial court in Schwab that 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." In July 2010, plaintiffs in Schwab voluntarily dismissed the case with prejudice. In Ohio, the Ohio Supreme Court overturned class certifications in the Marrone and Phillips cases. Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed both cases in August 2009. The Supreme Court of Washington denied a motion for interlocutory review filed by the plaintiffs in the Davies case that sought review of an order by the trial court that refused to certify a class. Plaintiffs subsequently voluntarily dismissed the Davies case with prejudice. Plaintiffs in the New Mexico case (Mulford) renewed their motion for class certification, which motion was denied by the federal district court in March 2009, with leave to file a new motion for class certification.

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

In Cleary, which was pending in an Illinois federal court, the district court dismissed plaintiffs' "Lights" claims against one defendant and denied plaintiffs' request to remand the case to state court. In September 2009, the court issued its ruling on PM USA's and the remaining defendants' motion for summary judgment as to all "Lights" claims. The court granted the motion as to all defendants except PM USA. As to PM USA, the court granted the motion as to all "Lights" and other low tar brands other than Marlboro Lights . As to Marlboro Lights , the court ordered briefing on why the 2002 state court order dismissing the Marlboro Lights claims should not be vacated based upon Good. In January 2010, the court vacated the previous dismissal. In February 2010, the court granted summary judgment in favor of defendants as to all claims except for the Marlboro Lights claims, based on the statute of limitations and deficiencies relating to the named plaintiffs. In June 2010, the court granted summary judgment in favor of all defendants on all remaining claims, dismissing the case. In July 2010, plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration with the district court, which was denied. In August 2010, plaintiffs filed an appeal with the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. Argument on the appeal was heard in April 2011.

Other Developments

In December 2009, the state trial court in the Carroll (formerly known as Holmes) case (pending in Delaware), denied PM USA's motion for summary judgment based on an exemption provision in the Delaware Consumer Fraud Act. In January 2011, the trial court allowed the plaintiffs to file an amended complaint substituting class representatives and naming Altria Group, Inc. and PMI as additional defendants. See Guarantees for a discussion of the Distribution Agreement between Altria Group, Inc. and PMI that provides for indemnities for certain liabilities concerning tobacco products.

 

In June 2007, the United States Supreme Court reversed the lower court rulings in the Watson case that denied plaintiffs' motion to have the case heard in a state, as opposed to federal, trial court. The Supreme Court rejected defendant's contention that the case must be tried in federal court under the "federal officer" statute. The case was removed to federal court in Arkansas and the case was transferred to the MDL proceeding discussed above. In November 2010, the district court in the MDL proceeding remanded the Watson case to Arkansas state court.

The Price Case

Trial in the Price case commenced in state court in Illinois in January 2003, and in March 2003, the judge found in favor of the plaintiff class and awarded $7.1 billion in compensatory damages and $3 billion in punitive damages against PM USA. In December 2005, the Illinois Supreme Court issued its judgment, reversing the trial court's judgment in favor of the plaintiffs and directing the trial court to dismiss the case. In May 2006, the Illinois Supreme Court denied plaintiffs' motion for re-hearing; in November 2006, the United States Supreme Court denied plaintiffs' petition for writ of certiorari and, in December 2006, the Circuit Court of Madison County enforced the Illinois Supreme Court's mandate and dismissed the case with prejudice. In January 2007, plaintiffs filed a motion to vacate or withhold judgment based upon the United States Supreme Court's grant of the petition for writ of certiorari in Watson (described above). In May 2007, PM USA filed applications for a writ of mandamus or a supervisory order with the Illinois Supreme Court seeking an order compelling the lower courts to deny plaintiffs' motion to vacate and/or withhold judgment. In August 2007, the Illinois Supreme Court granted PM USA's motion for supervisory order and the trial court dismissed plaintiffs' motion to vacate or withhold judgment.

In December 2008, plaintiffs filed with the trial court a petition for relief from the final judgment that was entered in favor of PM USA. Specifically, plaintiffs sought to vacate the 2005 Illinois Supreme Court judgment, contending that the United States Supreme Court's December 2008 decision in Good demonstrated that the Illinois Supreme Court's decision was "inaccurate." PM USA filed a motion to dismiss plaintiffs' petition and, in February 2009, the trial court granted PM USA's motion. In March 2009, the Price plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal with the Fifth Judicial District of the Appellate Court of Illinois. In February 2011, the intermediate appellate court reversed the trial court's dismissal of the plaintiffs' petition. PM USA has petitioned the Illinois Supreme Court for further review.

In June 2009, the plaintiff in an individual smoker lawsuit (Kelly) brought on behalf of an alleged smoker of "Lights" cigarettes in Madison County, Illinois state court filed a motion seeking a declaration that (1) his claims under the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act are not barred by the exemption in that statute based on his assertion that the Illinois Supreme Court's decision in Price is no longer good law in light of the decisions by the United States Supreme Court in Good and Watson, and (2) their claims are not preempted in light of the United States Supreme Court's decision in Good. In September 2009, the court granted plaintiff's motion as to federal preemption, but denied it with respect to the state statutory exemption.

State Trial Court Class Certifications

State trial courts have certified classes against PM USA in Massachusetts (Aspinall), Minnesota (Curtis), Missouri (Larsen) and New Hampshire (Lawrence). Significant developments in these cases include:

 

  •  

Aspinall: In August 2004, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the class certification order. In August 2006, the trial court denied PM USA's motion for summary judgment and granted plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on the defenses of federal preemption and a state law exemption to Massachusetts' consumer protection statute. On motion of the parties, the trial court subsequently reported its decision to deny summary judgment to the appeals court for review and stayed further proceedings pending completion of the appellate review. In December 2008,

 

subsequent to the United States Supreme Court's decision in Good, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court issued an order requesting that the parties advise the court within 30 days whether the Good decision is dispositive of federal preemption issues pending on appeal. In January 2009, PM USA notified the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court that Good is dispositive of the federal preemption issues on appeal, but requested further briefing on the state law statutory exemption issue. In March 2009, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the order denying summary judgment to PM USA and granting the plaintiffs' cross-motion. In January 2010, plaintiffs moved for partial summary judgment as to liability claiming collateral estoppel from the findings in the case brought by the Department of Justice (see Federal Government's Lawsuit described above). Argument on plaintiffs' motion was held on July 26, 2011.

 

  •  

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 October 2009, the trial court denied plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment, filed in February 2009, claiming collateral estoppel from the findings in the case brought by the Department of Justice (see Federal Government's Lawsuit described above). In October 2009, the trial court granted PM USA's motion for partial summary judgment, filed in August 2009, as to all consumer protection counts and, in December 2009, dismissed the case in its entirety. In December 2010, the Minnesota Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's dismissal of the case and affirmed the trial court's prior certification of the class under Minnesota's consumer protection statutes. The Court of Appeals also reversed the trial court's denial of Altria Group, Inc.'s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, thereby removing Altria Group, Inc. from the case, and affirmed the trial court's denial of the plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment claiming collateral estoppel from the findings in the case brought by the Department of Justice. PM USA's petition for review with the Minnesota Supreme Court was granted in March 2011.

 

  •  

Larsen: In August 2005, a Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed the class certification order. In December 2009, the trial court denied plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration of the period during which potential class members can qualify to become part of the class. The class period remains 1995 – 2003. In June 2010, PM USA's motion for partial summary judgment regarding plaintiffs' request for punitive damages was denied. In April 2010, plaintiffs moved for partial summary judgment as to an element of liability in the case, claiming collateral estoppel from the findings in the case brought by the Department of Justice (see Federal Government's Lawsuit described above). The plaintiffs' motion was denied in December 2010. On June 10, 2011, PM USA filed various summary judgment motions challenging the plaintiffs' claims. The case is currently set for trial to begin on September 6, 2011.

 

  •  

Lawrence: In November 2010, the trial court certified a class consisting of all persons who purchased Marlboro Lights cigarettes in the state of New Hampshire at any time from the date the brand was introduced into commerce until the date trial in the case begins. PM USA's motion for reconsideration of this decision was denied in January 2011. PM USA is seeking further review before the New Hampshire Supreme Court.

Certain Other Tobacco-Related Litigation

Tobacco Price Case: As of July 25, 2011, one case remains pending in Kansas (Smith) in which plaintiffs allege that defendants, including PM USA and Altria Group, Inc., conspired to fix cigarette prices in violation of antitrust laws. Plaintiffs' motion for class certification has been granted. No trial date has been set.

 

Case Under the California Business and Professions Code: In June 1997, a lawsuit (Brown) was 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 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 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 March 2005, the court granted defendants' motion to decertify the class based on a California law, which inter alia 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 defendants' alleged statutory violations ("Proposition 64"). In two July 2006 opinions, the California Supreme Court held Proposition 64 applicable to pending cases. Plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration of the order that decertified the class was denied, and plaintiffs appealed.

In September 2006, an intermediate appellate court affirmed the trial court's order decertifying the class. In May 2009, the California Supreme Court reversed the trial court decision that was affirmed by the appellate court and remanded the case to the trial court. Defendants filed a rehearing petition in June 2009. In August 2009, the California Supreme Court denied defendants' rehearing petition and issued its mandate. In March 2010, the trial court granted reconsideration of its September 2004 order granting partial summary judgment to defendants with respect to plaintiffs' "Lights" claims on the basis of judicial decisions issued since its order was issued, including the United States Supreme Court's ruling in Good, thereby reinstating plaintiffs' "Lights" claims. Since the trial court's prior ruling decertifying the class was reversed on appeal by the California Supreme Court, the parties and the court are treating all claims currently being asserted by the plaintiffs as certified, subject, however, to defendants' challenge to the class representatives' standing to assert their claims. The class is defined as people who, at the time they were residents of California, smoked in California one or more cigarettes between June 10, 1993 and April 23, 2001, and who were exposed to defendants' marketing and advertising activities in California. In July 2010, plaintiffs filed a motion seeking collateral estoppel effect from the findings in the case brought by the Department of Justice (see Federal Government's Lawsuit described above). In September 2010, plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary resolution of legal issues regarding restitutionary relief. The trial court denied both of plaintiffs' motions in November 2010. In November 2010, defendants filed a motion seeking a determination that Brown class members who were also part of the class in Daniels (a previously disclosed consumer fraud case in which the California Supreme Court affirmed summary judgment in PM USA's favor based on preemption and First Amendment grounds) are precluded by the Daniels judgment from recovering in Brown. This motion was denied in December 2010. Defendants sought review of this decision before the Fourth District Court of Appeal but were denied review on March 11, 2011. In December 2010, defendants filed a motion for a determination that the class representatives lack standing and are not typical or adequate to represent the class. In February 2011, the trial court ruled on this motion in the defendants' favor and vacated the previously scheduled trial date. Plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied in April 2011. In addition, in April 2011, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the action on the grounds that plaintiffs should not be permitted to amend the complaint. On June 22, 2011, the trial court granted plaintiffs' motion to file a new complaint to add new putative class representatives and denied the defendants' motion to dismiss. On July 1, 2011, plaintiffs filed a new amended complaint.

Ignition Propensity Cases: PM USA is currently a defendant in two wrongful death actions in which plaintiffs contend that fires caused by cigarettes led to other individuals' deaths. In one case pending in federal court in Massachusetts (Sarro), the district court in August 2009 granted in part PM USA's motion to dismiss, but ruled that two claims unrelated to product design could go forward. In November 2010, PM USA filed a motion for summary judgment. Argument was heard in March 2011. In a Kentucky federal court case (Walker), the court dismissed plaintiffs' claims in February 2009 and plaintiffs subsequently filed a notice of appeal. The appeal is pending before the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. Argument was held in October 2010.

UST Litigation

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

First, UST and/or its tobacco subsidiaries has been named in certain health care cost reimbursement/third-party recoupment/class action litigation against the major domestic cigarette companies and others seeking damages and other relief. The complaints in these cases on their face predominantly relate to the usage of cigarettes; within that context, certain complaints contain a few allegations relating specifically to smokeless tobacco products. These actions are in varying stages of pretrial activities.

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

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

Certain Other Actions

IRS Challenges to PMCC Leases

Background.  The IRS has concluded its examination of Altria Group, Inc.'s consolidated federal income tax returns for the years 1996 through 2003, and for each year has disallowed tax benefits pertaining to certain leveraged lease transactions entered into by PMCC (referred to by the IRS as lease-in/lease-out ("LILO") and sale-in/lease-out ("SILO") transactions). For financial reporting purposes, PMCC accounted for LILO and SILO transactions as leveraged lease transactions under the guidance in Accounting Standards Codification ("ASC") 840, Leases ("ASC 840"). For income tax purposes, PMCC treated these transactions as leases under case law and applicable IRS administrative guidance.

Refund Claims and Litigation.  Altria Group, Inc. believes that its tax treatment of PMCC's LILO and SILO transactions on federal and state income tax returns filed to date was proper and complied with applicable tax laws in effect during the relevant periods. Altria Group, Inc. has contested the disallowances, filed claims for refunds of federal income tax and associated interest paid and is pursuing refund litigation in federal court with respect to certain of the refund claims, as discussed below.

In October 2006, Altria Group, Inc. filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York to claim a refund on a portion of these federal income tax payments and associated interest for the years 1996 and 1997. In July 2009, the jury returned a unanimous verdict in favor of the IRS and, in April 2010, after denying Altria Group, Inc.'s post-trial motions, the district court entered final judgment in favor of the IRS. Altria Group, Inc. filed an appeal with the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in June 2010. Argument on the merits of this appeal occurred on June 22, 2011.

In March 2008, Altria Group, Inc. filed a second complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York seeking a refund of the federal income tax payments and associated interest for the years 1998 and 1999 attributable to the disallowance of tax benefits claimed in those years with respect to the LILO and SILO transactions subject to the jury verdict and with respect to the additional LILO and SILO transactions entered into in 1998 and 1999. In May 2009, the district court granted a stay pending the decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in the case involving the 1996 and 1997 years.

In March 2011, Altria Group, Inc. filed claims for a refund with the IRS for the years 2000 through 2003 of the tax and associated interest paid with respect to the LILO and SILO transactions that PMCC entered into during the 1996-2003 years. The IRS disallowed the claims on July 7, 2011, and Altria Group, Inc. intends to commence litigation in federal court.

In a closing agreement entered into in May 2010, Altria Group, Inc. and the IRS agreed that, with the exception of the LILO and SILO transactions, the tax treatment reported by Altria Group, Inc. on its consolidated federal income tax returns for the 2000-2003 years, as amended by the agreed-upon adjustments in the closing agreement, is appropriate and final. The IRS may not assess against Altria Group, Inc. any further taxes or additions to tax (including penalties) with respect to these years.

As a prerequisite to commencing in federal court the refund litigation described above following the IRS disallowance of tax benefits of the LILO/SILO transactions for the 1996-1999 audit cycle, in 2006 Altria Group, Inc. paid approximately $150 million related to disallowed tax benefits and associated interest. Similarly, following the IRS disallowance of tax benefits of the LILO/SILO transactions for the 2000-2003 audit cycle, also described above, in 2010, Altria Group, Inc. paid approximately $945 million in disallowed tax benefits and associated interest in order to pursue its legal challenge to the disallowances in federal court.

Second Quarter 2011 Earnings Charge.  Altria Group, Inc. has continually re-evaluated the likelihood of sustaining its tax position on PMCC's LILO and SILO transactions, as required by ASC 740, Income Taxes ("ASC 740"). In the second quarter of 2011, in accordance with ASC 840 and ASC 740, Altria Group, Inc. recorded a one-time charge of $627 million against its 2011 reported earnings related to the tax treatment of the LILO and SILO transactions that PMCC entered into between 1996 and 2003, as announced on June 9, 2011. Altria Group, Inc.'s decision to record the charge was based on the Federal Circuit's April 2011 adverse decision in Wells Fargo & Co. v. United States, involving SILO transactions entered into by another taxpayer. Altria Group, Inc. concluded that the decision introduced incremental risk to its tax analysis and, as a result, that it was no longer more likely than not that it would prevail in its defense of its tax position on PMCC's LILO and SILO transactions.

The charge of $627 million reflects the re-characterization of PMCC's LILO and SILO transactions as loans (as opposed to leases) for income tax purposes, which changes the timing of income recognition for tax purposes over the term of the deemed loan. This change, in turn, impacts the income of the leases recorded pursuant to leverage lease accounting (ASC 840) resulting in a lowering of the cumulative income from the transactions that had been recorded from inception of the transactions to the date of the charge. This earnings charge is incremental to $146 million recorded as a reduction to stockholders' equity upon the adoption of new accounting standards for leases ("FAS 13-2") and for uncertainty in income taxes ("FIN 48") on January 1, 2007, and approximately $95 million recorded to the statements of earnings from January 1, 2007 through March 31, 2011. In quantifying the reduction in cumulative leveraged lease income to include in the second quarter 2011 earnings charge, Altria Group, Inc. was required to make assumptions regarding a potential settlement of these matters with the IRS. To the extent the assumptions change, there may be additional impact on Altria Group, Inc.'s earnings but Altria Group, Inc. does not expect such impact, if any, to be significant.

 

Approximately 50% of the $627 million charge represents the effects of re-characterization of the transactions as loans and the resulting reduction in cumulative leveraged lease income described above. This reduction in income will be recaptured over the remaining terms of the respective transactions. The remaining portion of the charge primarily represents a permanent charge for interest on tax underpayments. The charge does not include potential penalties as Altria Group, Inc. believes that it met the applicable standards to avoid any associated penalties at the time it claimed the deductions on its tax returns.

Payments to the IRS.  As indicated in "Refund Claims and Litigation" above, Altria Group, Inc. has paid a total of approximately $1.1 billion in federal income tax payments and interest with respect to the LILO and SILO transactions for the 1996 through 2003 tax years. The tax component of this amount represents an acceleration of taxes that Altria Group, Inc. would have otherwise paid over the later stages of the LILO and SILO transactions. Altria Group, Inc. treated the amounts paid to the IRS for these years as deposits for financial reporting purposes pending the ultimate outcomes of the litigation and included such amounts in other assets on its consolidated balance sheets. If Altria Group, Inc. prevails in its refund litigation, it would receive a refund of the amounts previously paid to the IRS plus interest. If the IRS's position with respect to the LILO and SILO transactions is ultimately sustained, Altria Group, Inc. would reduce its tax liabilities and eliminate the asset discussed above.

Anticipated Future Disallowances and Additional Payments to the IRS.  Altria Group, Inc. further expects the IRS and impacted states to disallow income tax benefits claimed in years 2004 through 2009 related to the LILO and SILO transactions that PMCC entered into from 1996 through 2003. The disallowance of federal and state income tax benefits for the 2004 through 2009 tax years and associated interest through the 2011 tax year, as well as additional tax payments due for the 2010 and 2011 tax years, would result in additional payments of approximately $1.0 billion, excluding potential penalties. The tax component of this amount represents an acceleration of taxes that Altria Group, Inc. would have otherwise paid over the later stages of the LILO and SILO transactions. This amount is net of federal and state income taxes paid or payable on gains associated with sales of leased assets from January 1, 2008 through June 30, 2011; thus, while the initial amount payable may be greater than $1.0 billion, such taxes paid or payable on gains associated with sales of leased assets will be subsequently recovered no later than the closing of the audits for the cycles in which the sales have occurred.

The payments of disallowed tax benefits, if any, would depend upon the timing and outcome of future IRS audits and any related administrative challenges or litigation. The IRS is currently auditing the 2004-2006 tax years.

Other.  At this time, Altria Group, Inc. does not intend to claim tax benefits pertaining to PMCC's LILO and SILO transactions on its federal and state income tax returns for 2010 and future years. Altria Group, Inc., however, intends to preserve its right to file amended returns for these years claiming the tax benefits pertaining to PMCC's LILO and SILO transactions if Altria Group, Inc. is successful in the current and/or anticipated litigation discussed above.

As of June 30, 2011, the LILO and SILO transactions represented approximately 33% of the Net Finance Assets of PMCC's lease portfolio. PMCC has not entered into any LILO or SILO transactions since 2003.

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

 

Group, Inc. defendants deny any violation of ERISA or other unlawful conduct and are defending the case vigorously.

In December 2009, the court granted in part and denied in part defendants' motion to dismiss plaintiffs' complaint. In addition to dismissing certain claims made by plaintiffs for equitable relief under ERISA as to all defendants, the court dismissed claims alleging excessive administrative fees and mismanagement of company stock funds as to one of the Altria Group, Inc. defendants. In February 2010, the court granted a joint stipulation dismissing the fee and stock fund claims without prejudice as to the remaining defendants, including Altria Corporate Services, Inc. Accordingly, the only claim remaining at this time relates to the alleged negligence of plan fiduciaries for including the Growth Equity Fund and Balanced Fund as Kraft Thrift Plan investment options. Plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification in March 2010, which the court granted in August 2010. Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment in January 2011, and plaintiffs filed a motion for partial summary judgment. In March 2011, defendants filed a motion to vacate the class certification in light of recent federal judicial precedent. On July 18, 2011, the court granted defendants' summary judgment motion in part, finding that claims for periods prior to July 2, 2002 were time barred, and that the defendants properly monitored the funds. On July 20, 2011, the court denied plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment. Remaining in the case are claims after July 2, 2002 relating to whether it was prudent to retain actively managed investments (Growth Equity Fund and Balanced Fund) in the Kraft Thrift Plan after 1999. On July 20, 2011, the court also granted defendants' motion to vacate the class certification, and allowed plaintiffs leave to file a new motion for class certification in light of recent precedent and the court's summary judgment findings.

Under the terms of a Distribution Agreement between Altria Group, Inc. and Kraft, the Altria Group, Inc. defendants may be entitled to indemnity against any liabilities incurred in connection with this case.

Environmental Regulation

Altria Group, Inc. and its subsidiaries (and former subsidiaries) are subject to various federal, state and local laws and regulations concerning the discharge of materials into the environment, or otherwise related to environmental protection, including, in the United States: The Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act and the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (commonly known as "Superfund"), which can impose joint and several liability on each responsible party. Subsidiaries (and former subsidiaries) of Altria Group, Inc. are involved in several matters subjecting them to potential costs of remediation and natural resource damages under Superfund or other laws and regulations. Altria Group, Inc.'s subsidiaries expect to continue to make capital and other expenditures in connection with environmental laws and regulations. Altria Group, Inc. provides for expenses associated with environmental remediation obligations on an undiscounted basis when such amounts are probable and can be reasonably estimated. Such accruals are adjusted as new information develops or circumstances change. Other than those amounts, it is not possible to reasonably estimate the cost of any environmental remediation and compliance efforts that subsidiaries of Altria Group, Inc. may undertake in the future. In the opinion of management, however, compliance with environmental laws and regulations, including the payment of any remediation costs or damages and the making of related expenditures, has not had, and is not expected to have, a material adverse effect on Altria Group, Inc.'s consolidated results of operations, capital expenditures, financial position or cash flows.

Guarantees

In the ordinary course of business, certain subsidiaries of Altria Group, Inc. have agreed to indemnify a limited number of third parties in the event of future litigation. At June 30, 2011, subsidiaries of Altria Group, Inc. were also contingently liable for $29 million of guarantees related to their own performance, consisting primarily of surety bonds. These items have not had, and are not expected to have, a significant

 

impact on Altria Group, Inc.'s liquidity.

Under the terms of a distribution agreement between Altria Group, Inc. and PMI, entered into as a result of the PMI spin-off, liabilities concerning tobacco products will be allocated based in substantial part on the manufacturer. PMI will indemnify Altria Group, Inc. and PM USA for liabilities related to tobacco products manufactured by PMI or contract manufactured for PMI by PM USA, and PM USA will indemnify PMI for liabilities related to tobacco products manufactured by PM USA, excluding tobacco products contract manufactured for PMI. Altria Group, Inc. does not have a related liability recorded on its condensed consolidated balance sheet at June 30, 2011 as the fair value of this indemnification is insignificant.

As more fully discussed in Note 12. Condensed Consolidating Financial Information, PM USA has issued guarantees relating to Altria Group, Inc.'s obligations under its outstanding debt securities, borrowings under its Credit Agreement and amounts outstanding under its commercial paper program.

Redeemable Noncontrolling Interest

In September 2007, Ste. Michelle completed the acquisition of Stag's Leap Wine Cellars through one of its consolidated subsidiaries, Michelle-Antinori, LLC ("Michelle-Antinori"), in which Ste. Michelle holds an 85% ownership interest with a 15% noncontrolling interest held by Antinori California ("Antinori"). In connection with the acquisition of Stag's Leap Wine Cellars, Ste. Michelle entered into a put arrangement with Antinori. The put arrangement, as later amended, provides Antinori with the right to require Ste. Michelle to purchase its 15% ownership interest in Michelle-Antinori at a price equal to Antinori's initial investment of $27 million. The put arrangement became exercisable on September 11, 2010 and has no expiration date. As of June 30, 2011, the redemption value of the put arrangement did not exceed the noncontrolling interest balance. Therefore, no adjustment to the value of the redeemable noncontrolling interest was recognized in the condensed consolidated balance sheet for the put arrangement.

The noncontrolling interest put arrangement is accounted for as mandatorily redeemable securities because redemption is outside of the control of Ste. Michelle. As such, the redeemable noncontrolling interest is reported in the mezzanine equity section in the condensed consolidated balance sheets at June 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010.