UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

FORM 10-K

For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2006

2008

OR

For the transition period from            to            

Commission File Number 1-8940

ALTRIA GROUP, INC.

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

917-663-4000804-274-2200

(Registrant’s telephone number, including area code)

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act:

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act: None

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act.  Yes  þ  No  ¨

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or Section 15(d) of the Exchange Act.  Yes  ¨  No  þ

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

Indicate by check mark if disclosure of delinquent filers pursuant to Item 405 of Regulation S-K is not contained herein, and will not be contained, to the best of registrant’s knowledge, in definitive proxy or information statements incorporated by reference in Part III of this Form 10-K or any amendment to this Form 10-K.  þ

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, or a non-accelerated filer.smaller reporting company. See definitionthe definitions of “large accelerated filer,” “accelerated filerfiler” and large accelerated filer”“smaller reporting company” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act.

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

As of June 30, 20062008 the aggregate market value of the registrant’s common stock held by non-affiliates of the registrant was approximately $154$42 billion based on the closing sale price of the common stock as reported on the New York Stock Exchange.

DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PART I

PART I

Item 1.Business.

(a) General Development of Business

General

As used herein, unlessAltria Group, Inc. is a holding company incorporated in the context indicates otherwise, “AltriaCommonwealth of Virginia in 1985. At December 31, 2008, Altria Group, Inc.” refers to the consolidated financial position, results of operations and cash flows of the Altria family of companies and the term “ALG” refers solely to the parent company. ALG’s’s wholly-owned subsidiaries included Philip Morris USA Inc. (“PM USA”) and Philip Morris International Inc. (“PMI”) are, which is engaged in the manufacture and sale of cigarettes and other tobacco products. ALG’s majority owned (89.0% as of December 31, 2006) subsidiary Kraft Foods Inc.products in the United States, and John Middleton Co. (“Kraft”Middleton”), which is engaged in the manufacture and sale of packaged foodsmachine-made large cigars and beverages.pipe tobacco. Philip Morris Capital Corporation (“PMCC”), another wholly-owned subsidiary, maintains a portfolio of leveraged and direct finance leases. During 2003, PMCC shifted its strategic focus from an emphasis on the growth of its portfolio of finance leases through new investments to one of maximizing investment gains and generating cash flows from its existing portfolio of finance assets. In addition, at December 31, 2006, ALG hadAltria Group, Inc. held a 28.6%28.5% economic and voting interest in SABMiller plc (“SABMiller”) at December 31, 2008.

As further discussed in Note 23.Subsequent Events to Altria Group, Inc.’s consolidated financial statements, which is incorporated herein by reference to the 2008 Annual Report, and below inNarrative Description of Business—Acquisitions, on January 6, 2009, Altria Group, Inc. acquired all of the outstanding common stock of UST Inc. (“UST”), which isowns operating companies engaged in the manufacture and sale of various beer products.smokeless tobacco products and wine. As a result of the acquisition, UST has become an indirect wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria Group, Inc. Under the terms of the agreement, shareholders of UST received $69.50 in cash for each share of UST common stock. Additionally, each employee stock option of UST that was outstanding and unexercised was cancelled in exchange for the right to receive the difference between the exercise price for such option and $69.50. The transaction was valued at approximately $11.7 billion, which included the assumption of approximately $1.3 billion of debt, which together with acquisition-related costs and payments of approximately $0.6 billion, represent a total cash outlay of approximately $11 billion. The acquisition was financed with a combination of available cash (including the net proceeds from the senior notes offerings described in Note 10.Long-Term Debt to Altria Group, Inc.’s consolidated financial statements, which is incorporated herein by reference to the 2008 Annual Report) and borrowings under the 364-day bridge loan facility (described in Note 9.Short-Term Borrowings and Borrowing Arrangements to such financial statements). The bridge loan borrowings were refinanced through the issuance of additional senior notes in February 2009, and the bridge loan agreement was terminated, as discussed in “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” set forth in the 2008 Annual Report and incorporated herein by reference.

Kraft Spin-Off:

On January 31, 2007, the Board of Directors announced thatMarch 28, 2008, Altria Group, Inc. plansdistributed all of its interest in Philip Morris International Inc. (“PMI”) to spin offAltria Group, Inc. stockholders in a tax-free distribution. On March 30, 2007, Altria Group, Inc. distributed all of its remaining interest (89.0%) in Kraft Foods Inc. (“Kraft”) on a pro ratapro-rata basis to Altria Group, Inc. stockholders in a tax-free distribution. The distributionFor a further discussion of all the PMI and Kraft shares owned by Altria Group, Inc. will be made on March 30, 2007 (“Distribution Date”),spin-offs, see Note 1.Background and Basis of Presentation to Altria Group, Inc. stockholders of record as of’s consolidated financial statements, which is incorporated herein by reference to the close of business on March 16,2008 Annual Report.

On December 11, 2007, (“Record Date”). The exact distribution ratio will be calculated by dividing the number of Class A common shares of Kraft held by Altria Group, Inc. by the numberacquired 100% of Middleton for $2.9 billion in cash. The acquisition was financed with available cash. Middleton’s balance sheet was consolidated with Altria Group, Inc. shares outstanding’s as of December 31, 2007. Earnings from December 12, 2007 to December 31, 2007, the amounts of which were insignificant, were included in Altria Group, Inc.’s consolidated operating results. For additional discussion on the Record Date. Based on the number of shares ofMiddleton acquisition, see Note 5.Acquisitions to Altria Group, Inc. outstanding at December 31, 2006, the distribution ratio would be approximately 0.7 of a share of Kraft for every share of Altria Group, Inc. common stock outstanding. Altria Group, Inc. stockholders will receive cash in lieu of fractional shares of Kraft. Prior’s consolidated financial statements, which is incorporated herein by reference to the distribution, Altria Group, Inc. will convert its Class B shares of Kraft common stock, which carry ten votes per share, into Class A shares of Kraft, which carry one vote per share. Following the distribution, only Class A common shares of Kraft will be outstanding and Altria Group, Inc. will not own any shares of Kraft. Altria Group, Inc. intends to adjust its current dividend so that its stockholders who retain their Altria Group, Inc. and Kraft shares will receive, in the aggregate, the same dividend dollars as before the distribution. As in the past, all decisions regarding future dividend increases will be made independently by the Altria Group, Inc. Board of Directors and the Kraft Board of Directors, for their respective companies.2008 Annual Report.

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

-1-

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

To the extent that employees of the remaining Altria Group, Inc. receive Kraft stock options, Altria Group, Inc. will reimburse Kraft in cash for the Black-Scholes fair value of the stock options to be received. To the extent that Kraft employees hold Altria Group, Inc. stock options, Kraft will reimburse Altria Group, Inc. in cash for the Black-Scholes fair value of the stock options. To the extent that holders of Altria Group, Inc. stock rights receive Kraft stock rights, Altria Group, Inc. will pay to Kraft the fair value of the Kraft stock rights less the value of projected forfeitures. Based upon the number of Altria Group, Inc. stock awards outstanding at December 31, 2006, the net amount of these reimbursements would be a payment of approximately $133 million from Kraft to Altria Group, Inc. However, this estimate is subject to change as stock awards vest (in the case of restricted stock) or are exercised (in the case of stock options) prior to the Record Date for the distribution.

Kraft is currently included in the Altria Group, Inc. consolidated federal income tax return, and federal income tax contingencies are recorded as liabilities on the balance sheet of ALG. Prior to the distribution of Kraft shares, ALG will reimburse Kraft in cash for these liabilities, which are approximately $300 million, plus interest.

A subsidiary of ALG currently provides Kraft with certain services at cost plus a 5% management fee. After the Distribution Date, Kraft will undertake these activities, and any remaining limited services provided to Kraft will cease in 2007. All intercompany accounts will be settled in cash within 30 days of the Distribution Date.

Altria Group, Inc. currently estimates that, if the distribution had occurred on December 31, 2006, it would have resulted in a net decrease to Altria Group, Inc.’s stockholders’ equity of approximately $27 billion.

On or about March 20, 2007, Altria Group, Inc. will mail an Information Statement to all stockholders of Altria Group, Inc. common stock as of the Record Date. The Information Statement will include information regarding procedures by which the distribution will be effected and other details of the transaction.

Other:

PM USA is the largest cigarette company in the United States. PMI is a holding company whose subsidiaries and affiliates and their licensees are engaged primarily in the manufacture and sale of tobacco products (mainly cigarettes) internationally.Marlboro, the principal cigarette brand of these companies,this company, has been the world’s largest-selling cigarette brand in the United States since 1972. Middleton is a leading manufacturer of machine-made large cigars.Black & Mild, the principal cigar brand of Middleton, is the second largest selling machine-made large cigar in the United States.

In March 2005, a subsidiary of PMI acquired 40% of the outstanding shares of PT HM Sampoerna Tbk (“Sampoerna”), an Indonesian tobacco company. In May 2005, PMI purchased an additional 58% for a total of 98%. The total cost of the transaction was $4.8 billion, including Sampoerna’s cash of approximately $0.3 billionDividends and debt of the U.S. dollar equivalent of approximately $0.2 billion. TheShare Repurchases:

-2-

purchase price was primarily financed through a euro 4.5 billion bank credit facility arranged for PMI and its subsidiaries, consisting of a euro 2.5 billion three-year term loan facility (which, through repayments has since been reduced to euro 1.5 billion) and a euro 2.0 billion five-year revolving credit facility. These facilities are not guaranteed by ALG.

Sampoerna’s financial position and results of operations were fully consolidated with PMI as of June 1, 2005. From March 2005 to May 2005, PMI recorded equity earnings in Sampoerna. During 2006 and 2005, Sampoerna reported $608 million and $315 million, respectively, of operating income and $249 million and $128 million, respectively, of net earnings.

Following the Kraft is engaged world-wide in the manufacture and sale of packaged foods and beverages. Kraft manages and reports operating results through two units, Kraft North America Commercial (“KNAC”) and Kraft International Commercial (“KIC”). Kraft has operations in 72 countries and sells its products in more than 155 countries.

In June 2005, Kraft sold substantially all of its sugar confectionery business for pre-tax proceeds of approximately $1.4 billion. The sale included theLife Savers,Creme Savers,Altoids,Trolli andSugus brands.spin-off, Altria Group, Inc. has reflectedlowered its dividend so that holders of both Altria Group, Inc. and Kraft shares would receive initially, in the results of Kraft’s sugar confectionery businessaggregate, the same dividends paid by Altria Group, Inc. prior to the closing date as discontinued operations onKraft spin-off. Similarly, following the consolidated statementsPMI spin-off, Altria Group, Inc. lowered its dividend so that holders of earnings.both Altria Group, Inc. and PMI shares would receive initially, in the aggregate, the same dividends paid by Altria Group, Inc. prior to the PMI spin-off.

During the third quarter of 2008, Altria Group, Inc.’s Board of Directors approved a 10.3% increase in the quarterly dividend rate from $0.29 per common share to $0.32 per common share. The present annualized dividend rate is $1.28 per Altria Group, Inc. common share. Payments of dividends remain subject to the discretion of the Board of Directors.

In January 2004, Kraft announced a three-year restructuring2009, Altria Group, Inc. suspended its $4.0 billion (2008 to 2010) share repurchase program within order to preserve financial flexibility and to provide Altria Group, Inc. the objectivesopportunity to monitor economic impacts on its business and protect its investment grade credit rating. Altria Group, Inc. recognizes the importance of leveraging Kraft’s global scale, realigningshare repurchases to investors and loweringintends to evaluate them in early 2010.

During 2008, Altria Group, Inc. repurchased 53.5 million shares of its common stock at an aggregate cost structure, and optimizing capacity utilization. In January 2006, Kraft announced plans to expand its restructuring efforts through 2008. The entire restructuringof approximately $1.2 billion, or an average price of $21.81 per share. Altria Group, Inc.’s share repurchase program is expected to result in $3.0 billion in pre-tax charges, the closure of up to 40 facilities, the elimination of approximately 14,000 positions and annualized cost savings at the completiondiscretion of the programBoard of approximately $1.0 billion. The declineDirectors.

Other:

In 2008, as part of $700a corporate restructuring and relocation, Altria Group, Inc. sold its corporate headquarters building in New York City for $525 million from the $3.7 billion inand recorded a pre-tax charges previously announced was due primarily to lower than projected severance costs, the cancellation of an initiative to generate sales efficiencies, and thegain on sale of one plant that was originally planned to be closed. Approximately $1.9 billion of the $3.0 billion in pre-tax charges are expected to require cash payments. Total pre-tax restructuring program charges incurred during 2006, 2005 and 2004 were $673 million, $297 million and $641 million, respectively. Total pre-tax restructuring charges for the program incurred from January 2004 through December 31, 2006 were $1.6 billion, and specific programs announced will result in the elimination of approximately 9,800 positions. Approximately 60% of the pre-tax charges to date are expected to require cash payments.$404 million.

Source of Funds – Funds—Dividends

Because ALGAltria Group, Inc. is a holding company, its principal sources of funds are from the payment of dividends and repayment of debt from its subsidiaries. In 2006, ALG received $1.4 billion in cash dividends from Kraft. Kraft and PMI each maintain separate revolving credit facilities to finance normal working capital and other needs. The Kraft facility has a minimum net worth covenant and the PMI facilities have an earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization (“EBITDA”) to interest ratio covenant. Kraft and PMI have met, and expect to continue to meet, their respective covenants. Except for the previously discussed covenants and a minimum net worth requirement at PM USA as part of a court-approved stipulation regarding theEnglejudgment, ALG’sAt December 31, 2008, Altria Group, Inc.’s principal wholly-owned and majority-owned subsidiaries currently arewere not limited by long-term debt or other agreements in their ability to pay cash dividends or make other distributions with respect to their common stock.

(b) Financial Information About Segments

Beginning with the first quarter of 2008, Altria Group, Inc. revised its reportable segments to reflect the change in the way in which Altria Group, Inc.’s management reviews the business as a result of the acquisition of Middleton and the PMI spin-off. At December 31, 2008, Altria Group, Inc.’s reportable segments are domesticwere: cigarettes and other tobacco international tobacco, North American food, international foodproducts; cigars; and financial services. Accordingly, prior period segment results have been revised. Net revenues and operating companies

-3-

income* income (together with a reconciliation to operating income) attributable to each such segment for each of the last three years (along with total assets for each of tobacco, food and financial services at December 31, 2006, 2005 and 2004) are set forth in Note 1515. Segment Reporting to Altria Group, Inc.’s consolidated financial statements, (“Note 15”), which is incorporated herein by reference to the 20062008 Annual Report.

-2-

Altria Group, Inc.’s management reviews operating companies income to evaluate segment performance and allocate resources. Operating companies income for the segments excludes general corporate expenses and amortization of intangibles. The accounting policies of the segments are the same as those described in Note 2.Summary of Significant Accounting Policies to Altria Group, Inc.’s consolidated financial statements and are incorporated herein by reference to the 2008 Annual Report.

The relative percentages of operating companies income attributable to each reportable segment were as follows:

Changes in the relative percentages above reflect the following:

(c) Narrative Description of Business

Tobacco Products

PM USA manufactures, markets and sells cigarettesis engaged in the United Statesmanufacture and its territories,sale of cigarettes and contract manufactures cigarettes for PMI. Subsidiaries and affiliates of PMI and their licensees manufacture, market and sellother tobacco products outsidein the United States.

-4-

AcquisitionsMiddleton is engaged in the manufacture and sale of machine-made large cigars and pipe tobacco.

PMI – HoldingsPM USA is in the Dominican Republic:

In November 2006, a subsidiaryprocess of closing its Cabarrus, North Carolina manufacturing facility and consolidating cigarette manufacturing for the U.S. market at its Richmond, Virginia manufacturing center. PM USA decided in 2007 to consolidate its manufacturing in response to declining U.S. cigarette volume and notice from PMI exchanged its 47.5% interest in E. León Jimenes, C. por. A. (“ELJ”), which included a 40% indirect interest in ELJ’s beer subsidiary, Cerveceria Nacional Dominicana, C. por. A., for 100% ownership of ELJ’s cigarette subsidiary, Industria de Tabaco León Jimenes, S.A. (“ITLJ”) and $427 million of cash, which was contributed to ITLJ prior to the transaction. As a result of the transaction, PMI now owns 100% of the cigarette business andthat it would no longer holds an interestsource cigarettes from PM USA. PM USA’s cigarette production for PMI, which ended in ELJ’s beer business. The exchange of PMI’s interest in ELJ’s beer subsidiary resulted in a pre-tax gain on sale of $488 million, which increased Altria Group, Inc.’s 2006 net earnings by $0.15 per diluted share. The operating results of ELJ’s cigarette subsidiary from November 2006 to December 31, 2006, the amounts of which were not material, were included in Altria Group, Inc.’s operating results.

Sampoerna:

In March 2005, a subsidiary of PMI acquired 40% of the outstanding shares of Sampoerna, an Indonesian tobacco company. In May 2005, PMI purchased an additional 58%, for a total of 98%. The total cost of the transaction was approximately $4.8 billion, including Sampoerna’s cash of approximately $0.32008, approximated 21 billion and debt57 billion cigarettes in 2008 and 2007, respectively. PM USA expects to close its Cabarrus manufacturing facility by the end of the U.S. dollar equivalent of approximately $0.2 billion. The purchase price was primarily financed through a euro 4.5 billion bank credit facility arranged for PMI and its subsidiaries in May 2005, consisting of a euro 2.5 billion three-year term loan facility (which, through repayments has since been reduced to euro 1.5 billion) and a euro 2.0 billion five-year revolving credit facility. These facilities are not guaranteed by ALG.

The acquisition of Sampoerna allowed PMI to enter the profitable kretek cigarette category in Indonesia. Sampoerna’s financial position and results of operations have been fully consolidated with PMI as of June 1, 2005. From March 2005 to May 2005, PMI recorded equity earnings in Sampoerna. During 2006 and 2005, Sampoerna reported $608 million and $315 million, respectively, of operating income and $249 million and $128 million, respectively, of net earnings.

During 2006, the allocation of purchase price relating to the acquisition of Sampoerna was completed. Assets purchased consist primarily of goodwill of $3.5 billion, other intangible assets (primarily brands) of $1.3 billion, inventories of $0.5 billion and property, plant and equipment of $0.4 billion. Liabilities assumed in the acquisition consist principally of long-term debt of $0.3 billion and accrued liabilities.

Other:

During 2006, PMI entered into an agreement with British American Tobacco to purchase theMurattiand Ambassador trademarks in certain markets, as well as rights toL&M andChesterfield in Hong Kong, in exchange for the rights toBenson & Hedges in certain African markets and a payment of $115 million. The transaction closed in the fourth quarter of 2006.

On January 19, 2007, PMI entered into an agreement to acquire an additional 50.2% stake in a Pakistan cigarette manufacturer, Lakson Tobacco Company Limited (“Lakson Tobacco”), which is expected to bring PMI’s stake in Lakson Tobacco to approximately 90%. The transaction is valued at approximately $340 million and is expected to be completed during the first half of 2007. In January 2007, PMI notified the Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan and local stock exchanges of its intention to commence a public tender offer for the remaining shares.

During 2005, PMI acquired a 98.2% stake in Coltabaco, the largest tobacco company in Colombia, for approximately $300 million. During 2004, PMI purchased a tobacco business in Finland for a cost of

-5-

approximately $42 million. In October 2004, a subsidiary of PMI purchased a 20% stake in Lakson Tobacco in Pakistan for $60 million, bringing the subsidiary’s aggregate share ownership of the company to 40%.2010.

Domestic Tobacco ProductsCigarettes and other tobacco products

PM USA is the largest tobacco company in the United States, with total cigarette shipments in the United States of 183.4169.4 billion units in 2006,2008, a decrease of 1.1%3.2% from 2005.2007.

PM USA’s major premium brands areMarlboro,,Virginia Slims andParliament. Its principal discount brand isBasic. All of its brands are marketed to take into account differing preferences of adult smokers.Marlboro is the largest-selling cigarette brand in the United States, with shipments of 150.3141.5 billion units in 20062008 (down 0.2%2.0% from 2005)2007).

-3-

In the premium segment, PM USA’s 20062008 shipment volume decreased 0.7%3.0% from 2005,2007, and its shipment volume in the discount segment decreased 6.2%6.5%. Shipments of premium cigarettes accounted for 92.1%92.6% of PM USA’s total 20062008 volume, up from 91.6%92.3% in 2005.2007.

The following table summarizes PM USA’s cigarette volume performance by brand, which includes units sold as well as promotional units, and excludes Puerto Rico, U.S. Territories, Overseas Military, Philip Morris Duty Free Inc. and contract manufacturing for PMI (terminated in the fourth quarter of 2008), for the years ended December 31, 2008, 2007 and 2006:

The following table summarizes PM USA’s retail share performance, based on data from the IRI/Information Resources, Inc. (“IRI”)/Capstone Total Retail Panel, which was developedis a tracking service that uses a sample of stores to measureproject market share performance in retail stores selling cigarettes, butcigarettes. This panel was not designed to capture sales through other channels, including the Internet orand direct mail sales:mail:

As the cigarette industry environment continues to evolve, PM USA believes that it cannot accurately predict estimated future cigarette industry decline rates and, for this reason, PM USA does not provide this guidance. Evolving industry dynamics include: the uncertain economic conditions; unpredictable federal and state cigarette excise tax increases; adult consumer activity across multiple tobacco categories; and trade inventory changes or ratesas wholesalers and retailers continue to adjust their levels of change in domestic tobacco industry volume, the relative sizes of the premium and discount segments or its shipment or retail market share; however, itcigarette inventories. PM USA believes that its results may be materially adversely affected by the items discussed in Item 1A.Risk Factors.

As discussed in Note 19 to Altria Group, Inc.’s consolidated financial statements (“Note 19”), which is incorporated herein by reference to the 2006 Annual Report, in June 2006 under the order of the Illinois Supreme Court, the cash deposits of approximately $2.2 billion related to thePriceCigars case were returned to PM USA, and PM USA’s obligations to deposit further cash payments were terminated. A pre-existing 7.0%, $6 billion long-term note from ALG to PM USA that was placed in escrow pending the outcome of plaintiffs’ petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Supreme Court was returned to PM USA in December 2006, following the Supreme Court’s denial of the petition. Since this note is the result of an intercompany financing arrangement, it does not appear on the consolidated balance sheet of Altria Group, Inc.

In December 2007, Altria Group, Inc. acquired Middleton, a leading manufacturer of machine-made large cigars and pipe tobacco. Cigars shipment volume in 2008 increased 6.2% versus the prior-year to 1.3 billion units, driven by Middleton’s leading brand,International Tobacco ProductsBlack & Mild. Middleton achieved a retail

PMI’s total cigarette shipments increased 3.4% in 2006 to 831.4 billion units. PMI estimates that its share of the international cigarette market (which is defined as worldwide cigarette volume excluding the United States and duty-free shipments) was approximately 15.4%, 15.0% and 14.5% in 2006, 2005

-6--4-

and 2004, respectively. PMI estimates that international cigarette market shipments were approximately 5.2 trillion units in 2006, a 2.0% increase over 2005. PMI’s leading brands — Marlboro, L&M, Philip Morris, Bond Street, Chesterfield, Parliament, Lark, Merit and Virginia Slims — collectively accounted for approximately 10.9%, 11.1% and 11.0%share of 29.1% of the international cigarette marketmachine-made large cigar segment in 2006, 2005 and 2004, respectively. Shipments2008, which represents an increase of PMI’s principal brand,2.5 share points versus the prior-year, driven by MarlboroBlack & Mild, decreased 1.9% in 2006, and represented approximately 5.7%, 6.0%, and 5.8%. Retail share forBlack & Mild increased 2.8 share points versus the prior-year to 28.3% of the international cigarettemachine-made large cigar segment. Retail share performance is based on the 52-week periods ending December 21, 2008 and December 23, 2007 from the IRI Cigar Database for Food, Drug, Mass Merchandise and Convenience trade classes, which tracks cigar market in 2006, 2005 and 2004, respectively.share performance.

PMI has a cigarette market shareMiddleton entered into an agreement with PM USA to leverage PM USA’s distribution network and field sales force to represent Middleton’s brands. In mid-March 2008, PM USA’s sales force began representing Middleton’s brands at retail and supporting the execution of at least 15%, and in a number of instances substantially more than 15%, in more than 85 markets, including Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Colombia, the Czech Republic, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Kazakhstan, Mexico, the Netherlands, the Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Serbia, Singapore, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey and Ukraine.Middleton’s trade marketing programs.

Distribution, Competition and Raw Materials

PM USA sells itsAltria Group, Inc.’s tobacco subsidiaries sell their tobacco products principally to wholesalers (including distributors), large retail organizations, including chain stores, and the armed services. Subsidiaries and affiliates of PMI and their licensees sell their tobacco products worldwide to distributors, wholesalers, retailers, state-owned enterprises and other customers.

The market for tobacco products is highly competitive, characterized by brand recognition and loyalty, with product quality, taste, price, product innovation, marketing, packaging and packagingdistribution constituting the significant methods of competition. Promotional activities include, in certain instances and where permitted by law, allowances, the distribution of incentive items, price promotions and other discounts, including coupons, product promotions and allowances for new products. The tobacco products of ALG’sAltria Group, Inc.’s subsidiaries affiliates and their licensees are advertised and promoted through various media, although television and radio advertising of cigarettescertain tobacco products is prohibited in the United States and is prohibited or restricted in most other countries.States. In addition, as discussed below in Item 3.Legal Proceedings, PM USA, UST and other domesticU.S. tobacco manufacturers have agreed to other marketing restrictions in the United States as part of the settlements of state health care cost recovery actions.

In the United States, under a contract growing program known as the Tobacco FarmersFarmer Partnering Program, PM USA purchases burley and flue-cured leaf tobaccos of various grades and styles directly from tobacco growers. Under the terms of this program, PM USA agrees to purchase the amount of tobacco specified in the grower contracts. PM USA also purchases its United States tobacco requirements through other sources. In 2003, in connection with the settlement of a suit filed on behalf of a purported class of tobacco growers and quota-holders against certain manufacturers, including PM USA, and leaf dealers, PM USA and certain other defendants reached an agreement with plaintiffs to settle the lawsuit. The agreement includes a commitment by each settling manufacturer defendant, including PM USA, to purchase a certain percentage of its leaf requirements from U.S. tobacco growers over a period of at least ten years. These quantities are subject to adjustment in accordance with the terms of the settlement agreement.

Tobacco production in the United States has beenwas historically subject to government controls, including the production control programs administered by the United States Department of Agriculture (the “USDA”). In October 2004, the Fair and Equitable Tobacco Reform Act of 2004 (“FETRA”) was signed into law. FETRA providesprovided for the elimination of the federal tobacco quota and price support program through an industry funded buy-out of tobacco growers and quota-holders. The cost of the buy-out, to the industrywhich is estimated at approximately $9.5 billion, and is being paid over 10 years by manufacturers and importers of alleach kind of tobacco products.product. The cost is being allocated based on the relative market shares of manufacturers and importers of alleach kind of tobacco products.product. The quota buy-out payments will offset already scheduled payments to the National Tobacco Grower Settlement Trust (the “NTGST”). See Item 3.Legal Proceedings, Health Care Cost Recovery Litigation – Litigation—National Grower

-7-

Settlement Trust for a discussion of the NTGST. Manufacturers and importers of tobacco products, including the tobacco subsidiaries of Altria Group, Inc., are also obligated to cover any losses (up to $500 million)

-5-

that the government may incurincurred on the disposition of tobacco pool stock accumulated under the previous tobacco price support program. In 2005, PM USA recorded ahas paid $138 million expense for its share of the loss.tobacco pool stock losses. The quota buy-out did not have a material impact on Altria Group, Inc.’s 2008 consolidated results and Altria Group, Inc. does not currently anticipate that the quota buy-out will have a material adverse impact on its consolidated results in 20072009 and beyond.

In addition, oriental, flue-curedMiddleton purchases burley and burleyflue cured tobaccos are purchased outsideof various grades and styles through leaf dealers located in the United States. Middleton does not participate in the PM USA Tobacco production outside the United States is subject to a variety of controls and external factors, which may include tobacco subsidies and tobacco production control programs. All of those controls and programs may substantially affect market prices for tobacco.Farmers Partnering Program.

PM USA and PMIAltria Group, Inc.’s tobacco subsidiaries believe there is an adequate supply of tobacco in the world markets to satisfy their current and anticipated production requirements.

Acquisitions

Business EnvironmentMiddleton

PortionsOn December 11, 2007, Altria Group, Inc. acquired 100% of Middleton for $2.9 billion in cash. The acquisition was financed with available cash. Middleton’s balance sheet was consolidated with Altria Group, Inc.’s as of December 31, 2007. Earnings from December 12, 2007 to December 31, 2007, the amounts of which were insignificant, were included in Altria Group, Inc.’s 2007 consolidated operating results.

During the first quarter of 2008, the allocation of purchase price relating to the acquisition of Middleton was completed. Assets purchased in the Middleton acquisition consist primarily of non-amortizable intangible assets related to acquired brands of $2.6 billion, amortizable intangible assets of $0.1 billion, goodwill of $0.1 billion and other assets of $0.1 billion, partially offset by accrued liabilities assumed in the acquisition.

Information regarding Middleton’s business and operations is provided under the appropriate items of this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

UST Inc.

Description of the information calledTransaction

On January 6, 2009, Altria Group, Inc. acquired all of the outstanding common stock of UST, which owns operating companies engaged in the manufacture and sale of smokeless tobacco products and wine. Under the terms of the agreement, shareholders of UST received $69.50 in cash for each share of UST common stock. Additionally, each employee stock option of UST that was outstanding and unexercised was cancelled in exchange for the right to receive the difference between the exercise price for such option and $69.50. The transaction was valued at approximately $11.7 billion, which included the assumption of approximately $1.3 billion of debt, which together with acquisition-related costs and payments of approximately $0.6 billion (consisting primarily of financing fees, the funding of UST’s non-qualified pension plans, investment banking fees and the early retirement of UST’s revolving credit facility), represent a total cash outlay of approximately $11 billion.

Assets purchased consist primarily of non-amortizable intangible assets related to acquired brands of $9.5 billion, amortizable intangible assets (primarily consisting of customer relationships) of $0.4 billion, goodwill of $4.3 billion and other assets of $1.7 billion, partially offset by this Itemlong-term debt and other liabilities assumed in the acquisition. These amounts, which are herebybased on the framework for measuring fair value as prescribed in Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 157, represent

-6-

the preliminary estimates of assets acquired and liabilities assumed and are subject to revision when appraisals are finalized. The assignment of goodwill by reportable segment has not been completed. It is anticipated that none of the goodwill or other intangible assets acquired will be deductible for tax purposes.

The premium in the purchase price paid by Altria Group, Inc. for the acquisition of UST reflects the value of adding UST’s smokeless tobacco business to the tobacco businesses of PM USA and Middleton to create the premier tobacco company in the United States, with leading brands in cigarettes, smokeless tobacco and machine-made large cigars.

As discussed in Note 9.Short-Term Borrowings and Borrowing Arrangementsto Altria Group, Inc.’s consolidated financial statements, which is incorporated herein by reference to the paragraphs captioned2008 Annual Report, in connection with the acquisition of UST, at December 31, 2008, Altria Group, Inc. had in place a 364-day term bridge loan facility. On January 6, 2009, Altria Group, Inc. borrowed the entire available amount of $4.3 billion under this facility at the 1-month London Interbank Offered Rate (“LIBOR”) plus 225 basis points (the 1-month LIBOR rate on this borrowing was 0.43%), which was used along with the $6.7 billion net proceeds from the offerings of long-term notes (discussed in Note 10.Long-Term Debt to Altria Group, Inc.’s consolidated financial statements, which is incorporated herein by reference to the 2008 Annual Report) to fund the acquisition. Such bridge loan borrowings were refinanced through the issuance of additional senior notes in February 2009, and the bridge loan agreement was terminated, as discussed in “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations – Operating Results by Business Segment – Tobacco Business Environment” on pages 26 to 30 ofOperations” set forth in the 20062008 Annual Report and made a part hereof.incorporated herein by reference.

Food ProductsIn 2009, Altria Group, Inc. expects to incur approximately $0.6 billion in integration related charges, which include transaction and estimated restructuring costs which will be expensed in the periods in which the costs are incurred, primarily in 2009. Transaction costs related to the acquisition of UST of $4 million incurred during 2008 will be expensed in the first quarter of 2009.

Acquisitions and DivestituresUST Smokeless Tobacco Business

Description of UST’s Smokeless Tobacco Business and Products: United Biscuits:

In September 2006, Kraft acquiredStates Smokeless Tobacco Company (“USSTC”), a wholly-owned subsidiary of UST, is the Spanishleading producer and Portuguese operationsmarketer of United Biscuits (“UB”)smokeless tobacco products, including the premium brands,CopenhagenandSkoal, and rights to all Nabisco trademarks in the European Union, Eastern Europe, the Middle East and Africa, which UB has held since 2000, for a total cost of approximately $1.1 billion. The Spanish and Portuguese operations of UB include its biscuits, dry desserts, canned meats, tomato and fruit juice businesses, as well as seven UB manufacturing facilities and 1,300 employees. From September 2006 to December 31, 2006, these businesses contributed net revenues of approximately $111 million. The non-cash acquisition was financed by Kraft’s assumption of approximately $541 million of debt issued by the acquired business immediately prior to the acquisition, as well as $530 million of value for the redemption of Kraft’s outstanding investment in UB, primarily deep-discount securities. The redemption of Kraft’s investment in UB resulted in a $251 million pre-tax gain on closing, benefiting Altria Group, Inc. by $0.06 per diluted share.

Aside from the debt assumed as part of the acquisition price, Kraft acquired assets consisting primarily of goodwill of $734 million, other intangible assets of $217 million, property, plant brands,Red Sealand equipment of $161 million, receivables of $101 million and inventories of $34 million. These amounts represent the preliminary allocation of purchase price and are subject to revision when appraisals are finalized, which is expected to occur during the first half of 2007.Husky.

Other:UST’s Smokeless Tobacco Business—Raw Materials

During 2006, Kraft sold: USSTC purchases its pet snacks brandtobaccos from domestic suppliers. USSTC believes that there is an adequate supply of tobacco to satisfy its current and assets, and recorded tax expense of $57 million and a pre-tax asset impairment charge of $86 million in recognition of this sale. During 2006, Kraft also sold its rice brand and assets, and its industrial coconut assets. Additionally, during 2006, Kraft sold

-8-

certain Canadian assets and a small U.S. biscuit brand, and incurred pre-tax asset impairment charges of $176 million in 2005 in recognition of these sales. Also, during 2006, Kraft sold a U.S. coffee plant. The aggregate proceeds received from these sales during 2006 were $946 million, on which pre-tax gains of $117 million were recorded.

In January 2007, Kraft announced the sale of its hot cereal assets and trademarks. In recognition of the anticipated sale, Kraft recorded a pre-tax asset impairment charge of $69 million in 2006 for these assets.

In June 2005, Kraft sold substantially all of its sugar confectionery business for pre-tax proceeds of approximately $1.4 billion. The sale included theLife Savers,Creme Savers,Altoids,Trolli andSugus brands. Altria Group, Inc. has reflected the results of Kraft’s sugar confectionery business prior to the closing date as discontinued operations on the consolidated statements of earnings. Kraft recorded a net loss on sale of discontinued operations of $297 million in 2005, related largely to taxes on the transaction. ALG’s share of the loss, net of minority interest, was $255 million.

During 2005, Kraft sold its fruit snacks assets and incurred a pre-tax asset impairment charge of $93 million in recognition of this sale. Additionally, during 2005, Kraft sold its U.K. desserts assets and its U.S. yogurt assets. The aggregate proceeds received from divestitures during 2005, other than the sugar confectionery business, were $238 million, on which pre-tax gains of $108 million were recorded.

During 2004, Kraft sold a Brazilian snack nuts business and trademarks associated with a candy business in Norway. The aggregate proceeds received from the sales of these businesses were $18 million, on which pre-tax losses of $3 million were recorded. During 2004, Kraft acquired a U.S.-based beverage business for a total cost of $137 million.

The operating results of the businesses acquired and sold, other than Kraft’s UB acquisition and the divestiture of its sugar confectionery business, in the aggregate, were not material to Altria Group, Inc.’s consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows in any of the years presented.

North American Food

KNAC’s principal brands span five consumer sectors and include the following:

Snacks:    Oreo, Chips Ahoy!, Newtons, Peek Freans, Nilla, Nutter Butter, and SnackWell’s cookies; Ritz, Premium, Triscuit, Wheat Thins, Cheese Nips, Honey Maid Grahams and Teddy Grahams crackers; South Beach Diet(under license) crackers, cookies and bars; Planters nuts and salted snacks; Terry’s and Toblerone chocolate confectionery products; Handi-Snacks two-compartment snacks; and Balance nutrition and energy snacks.production requirements.

UST’s Smokeless Tobacco Business—Distribution, Competition, and Customers: USSTC’s largest customer is McLane Company, Inc. For further discussion, see above “Beverages:Narrative Description of Business—Tobacco Products—Distribution, Competition and Raw Materials.    Maxwell House, General Foods International, Starbucks (under license), Yuban, Seattle’s Best (under license), Sanka, Nabob, Gevalia andTassimo coffees; Capri Sun (under license), Kool-Aid and Crystal Light aseptic juice drinks; Kool-Aid, Tang, Crystal Light and Country Time powdered beverages; Veryfine juices; Tazo teas (under license); and Fruit₂O water.”

CheeseUST’s Smokeless Tobacco Business—Properties: USSTC owns and dairy:    KraftandCracker Barrel natural cheeses;Philadelphiacream cheese;KraftandVelveetaprocess cheeses;Kraft grated cheeses;Cheez Whiz process cheese sauce;Easy Cheese aerosol cheese spread;Polly-Ocheese;Deli Deluxe process cheese slices; andKnudsenandBreakstone’scottage cheeseoperates three principal smokeless tobacco manufacturing and sour cream.

Grocery:    Cool Whip frozen whipped topping; Backprocessing facilities located in Franklin Park, Illinois; Hopkinsville, Kentucky; and Nashville, Tennessee. These properties are maintained in good condition and are believed to Nature crackers, cookies, cerealsbe suitable and macaroni & cheese dinners; Post ready-to-eat cereals; Kraft and Miracle Whip spoonable dressings; Kraft andGood Seasonssalad dressings; A.1. steak sauce; Kraft and Bull’s-Eye barbecue sauces; Grey Poupon premium mustards; Shake ‘N Bake coatings; Jell-O dry packaged desserts, refrigerated gelatin and pudding snacks; andHandi-Snacks shelf-stable pudding snacks.

-9-

Convenient Meals:    DiGiorno, Tombstone, Jack’s and California Pizza Kitchen (under license) andDelissio frozen pizzas; Kraft macaroni & cheese dinners; South Beach Diet(under license) pizzas and meals; Taco Bell Home Originals (under license) meal kits; Lunchables lunch combinations; Oscar Mayer and Louis Rich cold cuts, hot dogs and bacon; Boca soy-based meat alternatives; andStove Top stuffing mix.adequate for present needs.

International FoodUST Wine Business

KIC’s principal brands within the five consumer sectors include the following:Description of UST’s Wine Business and Products: Ste. Michelle Wine Estates (“Ste. Michelle”), a wholly-owned UST subsidiary, is a producer of premium varietal and blended table wines. Ste. Michelle

-7-

produces wines in the United States marketed under various labels including Snacks:Chateau Ste. Michelle, Columbia Crest, Domaine Ste. Michelle, Villa Mt. Eden, Conn Creekand    MilkaErath. In addition, as a result of its 85 percent ownership interest in Stag’s Leap Wine Cellars, Ste. Michelle sells the following labels:Cask 23, SuchardFay, Côte d’OrS.L.V.,Arcadia, MarabouArtemis, TobleroneKariaandHawk Crest. Ste. Michelle is also the exclusive United States importer and distributor of the portfolio of wines produced by the Italian winemaker Marchesi Antinori, Srl, which includes such labels asTignanello, FreiaSolaia, Terry’sTormaresca, Daim / DimeVilla Antinori, Figaro, Karuna, Korona, Poiana, Meurisse, Prince Polo / Siesta, Alpen Gold, Pavlides, Twist, Merenda, Mirabell, Pyros, Mogyoros, Sport / Smash / Jazz, 3-Bit, Belvita, Shot, Terrabusi, Svoge, Ukraina, Vozdushny, Chudny Vecher, Lactaand GallitoPeppoli. chocolate confectionery products; Estrella, Maarud, Kar, Lux andPlanters nuts and salted snacks; and Oreo, Chips Ahoy!, Ritz, Club Social, Digestive, Chiquilin, Express, Kraker, Honey, Aveny, Marbu, Dorada, Pepitos, Variedad, Pacific, Belvita, Cerealitas, Trakinas and Lucky biscuits.

Beverages:    Jacobs, Gevalia, Carte Noire, Jacques Vabre, Kaffee HAG, Grand’ Mère, Kenco, Saimaza, Meisterroestung, Maxim, Maxwell House, Onko, Splendid,Karat, TassimoUST’s Wine Business—Raw Materials: Ste. Michelle uses grapes harvested from its own vineyards or purchased from independent growers, as well as bulk wine purchased from other sources. Grape production can be adversely affected by weather and Nova Brasilia coffees; Suchard Express, O’Boy, other forces that may limit production. At the present time, Ste. Michelle believes that there is a sufficient supply of grapes and Kaba chocolate drinks; Tang, Clight, Kool-Aid, Royal, Verao, Fresh, Frisco bulk wine available in the market to satisfy its current and Q-Refres-Ko powdered beverages; Maguary juice concentrate and ready-to-drink beverages; and Capri Sun (under license) aseptic juice drinks. expected production requirements.

CheeseUST’s Wine Business—Distribution, Competition and dairy:    KraftCustomers: Ste. Michelle’s primary competition comes from many large, well-established national andPhiladelphia cream cheese; Kraft, Sottilette, Dairylea, Osella, Mama Luise international companies as well as many small wine producers. Its principal methods of competition include quality, price, consumer and El Caserío cheeses; Kraft,Velveeta trade wine tastings, competitive wine judging and Eden process cheeses;Kraftnatural cheese; and Cheez Whiz process cheese spread. advertising. Substantially all of Ste. Michelle’s sales occur through state-licensed distributors. A substantial portion of Ste. Michelle’s gross sales are made to two distributors.

Grocery:    Kraft spoonableUST’s Wine Business—Properties: Ste. Michelle operates 11 wine-making facilities—seven in Washington state, three in California and pourable salad dressings; Miracel Whip spoonable dressings; Royal dry packaged desserts; Jell-Odessert toppings; Postready-to-eat cereals; Kraft peanut butter;Mirácolisauces;one in Oregon. All of these facilities are owned, with the exception of one facility in Washington state that is leased. In addition, in order to support the production of its wines, Ste. Michelle owns or leases vineyards in Washington state, California and Vegemite yeast spread.

Convenient Meals:    Lunchables lunch combinations; Kraft macaroni & cheese dinners; Kraft Oregon. These properties are maintained in good condition and Mirácoli pasta dinners are believed to be suitable and sauces; and Simmenthal canned meats.adequate for present needs.

Distribution, Competition and Raw MaterialsUST’s Legal Proceedings: See Item 3.Legal Proceedings.

KNAC’s products are generally sold to supermarket chains, wholesalers, supercenters, club stores, mass merchandisers, distributors, convenience stores, gasoline stations, drug stores, value stores and other retail food outlets. In general, the retail trade for food products is consolidating. Food products are distributed through distribution centers, satellite warehouses, company-operated and public cold-storage facilities, depots and other facilities. Most distribution in North America is in the form of warehouse delivery, but biscuits and frozen pizza are distributed through two direct-store delivery systems. Kraft supports its selling efforts through three principal sets of activities: consumer advertising in broadcast, print, outdoor and on-line media; consumer promotions such as coupons and contests; and trade promotions to support price features, displays and other merchandising of products by customers. Subsidiaries and affiliates of KIC sell their food products primarily in the same manner and also engage the services of independent sales offices and agents.

Kraft is subject to competitive conditions in all aspects of its business. Competitors include large national and international companies and numerous local and regional companies. Some competitors may have different profit objectives and some competitors may be more or less susceptible to currency exchange rates. Kraft’s food products also compete with generic products and private-label products of

-10-

food retailers, wholesalers and cooperatives. Kraft competes primarily on the basis of product quality, brand recognition, brand loyalty, service, marketing, advertising and price. Substantial advertising and promotional expenditures are required to maintain or improve a brand’s market position or to introduce a new product.

Kraft is a major purchaser of milk, cheese, nuts, green coffee beans, cocoa, corn products, wheat, pork, poultry, beef, vegetable oil, and sugar and other sweeteners. It also uses significant quantities of glass, plastic and cardboard to package its products. Kraft continuously monitors worldwide supply and cost trends of these commodities to enable it to take appropriate action to obtain ingredients and packaging needed for production.

Kraft purchases a substantial portion of its dairy raw material requirements, including milk and cheese, from independent third parties such as agricultural cooperatives and independent processors. The prices for milk and other dairy product purchases are substantially influenced by government programs, as well as by market supply and demand. Dairy commodity costs on average were lower in 2006 than in 2005.

The most significant cost item in coffee products is green coffee beans, which are purchased on world markets. Green coffee bean prices are affected by the quality and availability of supply, trade agreements among producing and consuming nations, the unilateral policies of the producing nations, changes in the value of the United States dollar in relation to certain other currencies and consumer demand for coffee products. In 2006, coffee bean costs on average were higher than in 2005.

A significant cost item in chocolate confectionery products is cocoa, which is purchased on world markets, and the price of which is affected by the quality and availability of supply and changes in the value of the British pound sterling and the United States dollar relative to certain other currencies. In 2006, cocoa bean and cocoa butter costs on average were lower than in 2005.

During 2006, aggregate commodity costs continued to rise for Kraft, with significant impacts resulting from higher energy, packaging and coffee costs, partially offset by lower year-over-year cheese and meat costs. For 2006, pre-tax aggregate commodity costs increased by approximately $275 million from 2005, following an increase of approximately $800 million for 2005 compared with 2004. Kraft expects the higher cost environment to continue, particularly for energy and packaging.

The prices paid for raw materials and agricultural materials used in Kraft’s food products generally reflect external factors such as weather conditions, commodity market fluctuations, currency fluctuations and the effects of governmental agricultural programs. Although the prices of the principal raw materials can be expected to fluctuate as a result of these factors, Kraft believes such raw materials to be in adequate supply and generally available from numerous sources. Kraft uses hedging techniques to minimize the impact of price fluctuations in its principal raw materials. However, Kraft does not fully hedge against changes in commodity prices, and these strategies may not protect Kraft from increases in specific raw material costs.

Regulation

All of KNAC’s United States food products and packaging materials are subject to regulations administered by the Food and Drug Administration (the “FDA”) or, with respect to products containing meat and poultry, the Food Safety and Inspection Service of the USDA. Among other things, these agencies enforce statutory prohibitions against misbranded and adulterated foods, establish safety standards for food processing, establish ingredients and manufacturing procedures for certain foods, establish standards of identity for certain foods, determine the safety of food additives, and establish labeling standards and nutrition labeling requirements for food products.

-11-

In addition, states enforce food laws, such as regulating the business of KNAC’s operating units by licensing plants, enforcing federal and state standards of identity for selected food products, grading food products, inspecting plants, regulating certain trade practices in connection with the sale of dairy products and imposing their own labeling requirements on food products.

Many of the food commodities on which KNAC’s United States businesses rely are subject to governmental agricultural programs. These programs have substantial effects on prices and supplies, and are subject to Congressional and administrative review.

Almost all of the activities of Kraft’s operations outside of the United States are subject to local and national regulations similar to those applicable to KNAC’s United States businesses and, in some cases, international regulatory provisions, such as those of the European Union (the “EU”) regarding labeling, packaging, food content, pricing, marketing and advertising, and related areas.

The EU and certain individual countries require that food products containing genetically modified organisms or classes of ingredients derived from them be labeled accordingly. Other countries may adopt similar regulations. The FDA has concluded that there is no basis for similar mandatory labeling under current United States law.

Business Environment

Portions of the information called for by this Item are hereby incorporated by reference to the paragraphs captioned “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations – Operating Results by Business Segment – Food Business Environment” on pages 33 to 34 of the 2006 Annual Report and made a part hereof.

Financial Services

PMCC holds investments in finance leases, principally in transportation (including aircraft), power generation and manufacturing equipment and facilities. Total assets of PMCC were $6.8$5.5 billion at December 31, 2006,2008, down from $7.4$6.1 billion at December 31, 2005,2007, reflecting a decrease in finance assets, net, due primarily to asset sales. In 2003, PMCC shifted its strategic focus and is no longer making new investments but is instead focused on managing its existing portfolio of finance assets in order to maximize gains and generate cash flow from asset sales and related activities. Accordingly, PMCC’s operating companies income will fluctuate over time as investments mature or are sold. PMCC’s finance asset portfolio includes leases in the following investment categories: electric power, aircraft, rail and surface transport, manufacturing and real estate industries. Finance assets, net, which are comprisedprimarily leveraged leases, consist of total lease payments receivable ($17.9 billion) and the residual value of assets under lease ($1.5 billion), reduced by third-party nonrecourse debt ($11.5 billion), unearned income ($2.1 billion) and unearned income.allowance for losses ($0.3 billion). The payment of the nonrecourse debt is collateralized by lease payments receivable and the leased property, and is nonrecourse to all other assets of PMCC or Altria Group, Inc. As required by accounting standardsprinciples generally accepted in the United States of America (“U.S.US GAAP”), the third-party nonrecourse debt has been offset against the related rentals receivable and has been presented on a net basis, within finance assets, net, in Altria Group, Inc.’s consolidated balance sheets.

During 2006, 2005 and 2004, PMCC received proceeds from asset sales and maturities of $357 million, $476 million and $644 million, respectively, and recorded gains of $132 million, $72 million and $112 million, respectively, in operating companies income.

Among its leasing activities, PMCC leases a number of aircraft, predominantly to major U.S. passenger carriers. At December 31, 2006, $1.9 billion of PMCC’s finance asset balance related to aircraft. Two of PMCC’s aircraft lessees, Delta Air Lines, Inc. (“Delta”) and Northwest Airlines, Inc.

-12--8-

(“Northwest”) are currently under bankruptcy protection. In addition, PMCC leases one natural gas-fired power plant to an indirect subsidiary of Calpine Corporation (“Calpine”). Calpine, which has guaranteed the lease, is currently operating under bankruptcy protection. PMCC does not record income on leases in bankruptcy. Should a lease rejection or foreclosure occur, it would result in the write-off of the finance asset balance against PMCC’s allowance for losses and the acceleration of deferred tax payments on these leases. At December 31, 2006, PMCC’s finance asset balances for these leases were as follows:

At December 31, 2006, PMCC’s allowance for losses was $480 million. During the second quarter of 2006, PMCC increased its allowance for losses by $103 million due to continuing issues within the airline industry. Charge-offs to the allowance for losses in 2006 totaled $219 million. The acceleration of taxes on the foreclosures of Northwest RJ85s and six aircraft previously financed under leveraged leases with United Air Lines, Inc. (“United”) written off in the first quarter of 2006 upon United’s emergence from bankruptcy, totaled approximately $80 million. Foreclosures on Delta and Calpine (Tiverton & Rumford) leveraged leases will result in the acceleration of previously deferred taxes of approximately $180 million.

In the third quarter 2005, PMCC recorded a provision for losses of $200 million due to continuing uncertainty within its airline portfolio and bankruptcy filings by Delta and Northwest. As a result of this provision, PMCC’s fixed charges coverage ratio did not meet its 1.25:1 requirement under a support agreement with ALG. Accordingly, as required by the support agreement, a support payment of $150 million was made by ALG to PMCC in September 2005. In addition, in the fourth quarter of 2004, PMCC recorded a provision for losses of $140 million for its airline industry exposure. During 2006, 2005 and 2004, charge-offs to the allowance for losses were $219 million, $101 million and $39 million, respectively. It is possible that additional adverse developments may require PMCC to increase its allowance for losses.

The IRS concluded its examination of ALG’s consolidated tax returns for the years 1996 through 1999, and issued a final Revenue Agent’s Report (“RAR”) on March 15, 2006. The RAR disallowed benefits pertaining to certain PMCC leveraged lease transactions for the years 1996 through 1999. Altria Group, Inc. has agreed with all conclusions of the RAR, with the exception of the disallowance of benefits pertaining to several PMCC leveraged lease transactions for the years 1996 through 1999.

-13-

PMCC will continue to assert its position regarding these leveraged lease transactions and contest approximately $150 million of tax and net interest assessed and paid with regard to them. The IRS may in the future challenge and disallow more of PMCC’s leveraged leases based on recent Revenue Rulings, a recent IRS Notice and subsequent case law addressing specific types of leveraged leases (lease-in/lease-out (“LILO”) and sale-in/lease-out (“SILO”) transactions). PMCC believes that the position and supporting case law described in the RAR, Revenue Rulings and the IRS Notice are incorrectly applied to PMCC’s transactions and that its leveraged leases are factually and legally distinguishable in material respects from the IRS’s position. PMCC and ALG intend to vigorously defend against any challenges based on that position through litigation. In this regard, on October 16, 2006, PMCC filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York to claim refunds for a portion of these tax payments and associated interest and intends to file complaints for the remainder. However, should PMCC’s position not be upheld, PMCC may have to accelerate the payment of significant amounts of federal income tax and significantly lower its earnings to reflect the recalculation of the income from the affected leveraged leases, which could have a material effect on the earnings and cash flows of Altria Group, Inc. in a particular fiscal quarter or fiscal year. PMCC considered this matter in its adoption of Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) Interpretation No. 48, “Accounting for Uncertainty in Income Taxes – an interpretation of FASB Statement No. 109” (“FIN 48”) and FASB Staff Position No. FAS 13-2, “Accounting for a Change or Projected Change in the Timing of Cash Flows Relating to Income Taxes Generated by a Leveraged Lease Transaction.”

Business Environment

Portions of the information called for by this Item are hereby incorporated by reference to the paragraphs captioned “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations – Operations—Operating Results by Business Segment – Financial Services”Segment—Tobacco Business Environment” on pages 3683 to 3788 of the 20062008 Annual Report and “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations—Operating Results by Business Segment—Financial Services Business Environment” on pages 90 to 91 and made a part hereof.

Other Matters

Customers

NoneThe largest customer of the business segmentsPM USA and Middleton, McLane Company, Inc., accounted for approximately 27%, 26% and 25% of the Altria family of companies is dependent upon a single customer or a few customers, the loss of which would have a material adverse effect on Altria Group, Inc.’s consolidated results of operations. However, Kraft’s ten largest customers accounted for approximately 40%, 37% and 38% of its net revenues infor the years ended December 31, 2008, 2007 and 2006, 2005 and 2004, respectively. One of Kraft’s customers, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. accounted for approximately 15%, 14% and 14% of Kraft’sThese net revenues were reported in 2006, 2005the Cigarettes and 2004, respectively.other tobacco products and Cigars segments.

Employees

At December 31, 2006, ALG2008, Altria Group, Inc. and its subsidiaries employed approximately 175,000 people worldwide. In January 2004, Kraft announced a three-year restructuring program and in January 2006, it announced plans to expand its restructuring efforts through 2008. The entire restructuring program is expected to result in the elimination of approximately 14,000 positions. At December 31, 2006, approximately 8,400 of these positions have been eliminated.10,400 people.

Executive Officers of Altria Group, Inc.

The disclosure regarding executive officers is set forth under the heading “Executive Officers as of February 27, 2009” in Item 10 of this Form 10-K and is incorporated by reference herein.

Research and Development

The research and development expense for the years ended December 31, 2006, 20052008, 2007 and 20042006 are set forth in Note 1717.Additional Information to Altria Group, Inc.’s financial statements, which is incorporated herein by reference to the 20062008 Annual Report.

-14-

TrademarksIntellectual Property

Trademarks are of material importance to ALG’s consumer products subsidiariesAltria Group, Inc. and its operating companies, and are protected by registration or otherwise inotherwise. In addition, as of December 31, 2008, the portfolio of over five hundred United States patents owned by Altria Group, Inc.’s businesses, as a whole, was material to Altria Group, Inc. and mostits tobacco businesses. However, no one patent or a group of related patents was material to Altria Group, Inc.’s business or its tobacco businesses as of December 31, 2008. We also have proprietary secrets, technology, know-how, processes and other markets where the related productsintellectual property rights that are sold.protected by appropriate confidentiality measures. Certain trade secrets are material to Altria Group, Inc. and its tobacco businesses.

Environmental Regulation

ALGAltria Group, Inc. and its subsidiaries (and former subsidiaries) are subject to various federal, state local and foreignlocal laws and regulations concerning the discharge of materials into the environment, or otherwise related to environmental protection, including, in the United States;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. In 2006, subsidiaries (orSubsidiaries (and former subsidiaries)

-9-

of ALG wereAltria Group, Inc. are involved in approximately 75 activeseveral matters subjecting them to potential remediation costs related to remediations under Superfund or other laws and regulations. ALG’sAltria Group, Inc.’s subsidiaries expect to continue to make capital and other expenditures in connection with environmental laws and regulations. Although it is not possible to predict precise levels of environmental-related expenditures, compliance with such laws and regulations, including the payment of any remediation costs and the making of such 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, earnings or competitive position.

(d) Financial Information About Geographic Areas

The amounts of net revenues and long-lived assets attributable to eachSubstantially all of Altria Group, Inc.’s geographic segments and the amount of exportnet revenues from continuing operations are from sales fromgenerated in the United States for each of the last three fiscal years areyears. As is described in “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations,” set forth in Note 15.

Subsidiaries of ALG export tobacco and tobacco-related products, coffee products, grocery products, cheese and processed meats. In 2006,the 2008 Annual Report, subsequent to the PMI spin-off, PM USA recorded net revenues of $298 million from contract volume manufactured for PMI under an agreement that terminated in the fourth quarter of 2008. Subsequent to the PMI spin-off, substantially all exports fromof our long-lived assets are located in the United States by these subsidiaries amounted to approximately $4 billion.States.

(e) Available Information

ALGAltria Group, Inc. is required to file annual, quarterly and specialcurrent reports, proxy statements and other information with the SEC. Investors may read and copy any document that ALGAltria Group, Inc. files, including this Annual Report on Form 10-K, at the SEC’s Public Reference Room at 100 F Street, NE, Washington, D.C. 20549. Investors may obtain information on the operation of the Public Reference Room by calling the SEC at 1-800-SEC-0330. In addition, the SEC maintains an Internet site at http://www.sec.gov that contains reports, proxy and information statements, and other information regarding issuers that file electronically with the SEC, from which investors can electronically access ALG’sAltria Group, Inc.’s SEC filings.

ALGAltria Group, Inc. makes available free of charge on or through its website (www.altria.com), its Annual Report on Form 10-K, Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q, Current Reports on Form 8-K and amendments to those reports filed or furnished pursuant to Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, as soon as reasonably practicable after ALGAltria Group, Inc. electronically files such material with, or furnishes it to, the SEC. Investors can access ALG’sAltria Group, Inc.’s filings with the SEC by visiting www.altria.com/secfilings.

The information on ALG’s websitethe respective websites of Altria Group, Inc. and its subsidiaries is not, and shall not be deemed to be, a part of this report or incorporated into any other filings ALGAltria Group, Inc. makes with the SEC.

-15-

Item 1A.Risk Factors.

The following risk factors should be read carefully in connection with evaluating our business and the forward-looking statements contained in this Annual Report. Any of the following risks could materially adversely affect our business, our operating results, our financial condition and the actual outcome of matters as to which forward-looking statements are made in this Annual Report.

We* may from time to time make written or oral forward-looking statements, including statements contained in filings with the SEC, in reports to stockholders and in press releases and investor

-10-

webcasts. You can identify these forward-looking statements by use of words such as “strategy,” “expects,” “continues,” “plans,” “anticipates,” “believes,” “will,” “estimates,” “intends,” “projects,” “goals,” “targets” and other words of similar meaning. You can also identify them by the fact that they do not relate strictly to historical or current facts.

We cannot guarantee that any forward-looking statement will be realized, although we believe we have been prudent in our plans and assumptions. Achievement of future results is subject to risks, uncertainties and inaccurate assumptions. Should known or unknown risks or uncertainties materialize, or should underlying assumptions prove inaccurate, actual results could vary materially from those anticipated, estimated or projected. Investors should bear this in mind as they consider forward-looking statements and whether to invest in or remain invested in Altria Group, Inc.’s securities. In connection with the “safe harbor” provisions of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, we are identifying important factors that, individually or in the aggregate, could cause actual results and outcomes to differ materially from those contained in any forward-looking statements made by us; any such statement is qualified by reference to the following cautionary statements. We elaborate on these and other risks we face throughout this document, particularly in the “Business Environment” sections preceding our discussion of operating results of our subsidiaries’ businesses.businesses in “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” in the 2008 Annual Report. You should understand that it is not possible to predict or identify all risk factors. Consequently, you should not consider the following to be a complete discussion of all potential risks or uncertainties. We do not undertake to update any forward-looking statement that we may make from time to time.

Tobacco-Related Litigation. There is substantial litigation related to tobacco productsLegal proceedings covering a wide range of matters are pending or threatened in thevarious United States and certain foreign jurisdictions. Itjurisdictions against Altria Group, Inc. and its subsidiaries including PM USA and UST, as well as their respective indemnitees. Various types of claims are raised in these proceedings, including product liability, consumer protection, antitrust, tax, contraband shipments, patent infringement, employment matters, claims for contribution and claims of competitors and distributors.

Litigation is subject to uncertainty and it is possible that there could be adverse developments in pending cases. An unfavorable outcome or settlement of pending tobacco relatedtobacco-related litigation could encourage the commencement of additional litigation. Damages claimed in some tobacco-related litigation are significant and, in certain cases, range in the billions of dollars. The variability in pleadings, 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.

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 4043 states now limit the dollar amount of bonds or require no bond at all.

It is possible that Altria Group, Inc.’sthe 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. Nevertheless, although litigation is subject to uncertainty, management believes the litigation environment has substantially improved. ALGAltria 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 a number of valid defenses to the litigation pending against it, as well as valid bases for appeal of adverse verdicts against it.verdicts. All such cases are, and will continue to be, vigorously defended. However, ALGAltria Group, Inc. and its subsidiaries may enter into settlement discussions in particular cases if they believe it is in the best interests of ALG’s stockholdersAltria Group, Inc. to do so. Please see Note 1920.Contingencies to our consolidated financial statements, Item 3.Legal Proceedings, and Exhibit 99.1 for a discussion of pending tobacco-related litigation.

-16-

Corporate Restructuring.  On January 31, 2007, the Board of Directors of ALG authorized the distribution of all Kraft shares owned by ALG to ALG’s shareholders. The distribution will be made on March 30, 2007 to ALG shareholders of record as of 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on March 16, 2007. It is possible that an action may be brought seeking to enjoin the spin-off. Any such injunction would have to be based on a finding that Altria is insolvent or would be insolvent after giving effect to the spin-off or intends to delay, hinder or defraud creditors. In the event the spin-off is challenged, ALG will defend such action vigorously, including by prosecuting any necessary appeals. Although litigation is subject to uncertainty, management believes that Altria should ultimately prevail against any such action.

-11-

Tobacco Control Action in the Public and Private Sectors. Our tobacco subsidiaries face significant governmental action, including efforts aimed at reducing the incidence of smoking, restricting marketing and advertising, imposing regulations on packaging, warnings and disclosure of ingredients and flavors, prohibiting the sale of tobacco products with certain characterizing flavors or other characteristics, the sale of tobacco products by certain retail establishments and the sale of tobacco products in certain packing sizes, and seeking to hold usthem responsible for the adverse health effects associated with both smoking and exposure to environmental tobacco smoke. Governmental actions, combined with the diminishing social acceptance of smoking and private actions to restrict smoking, have resulted in reduced industry volume, and we expect this declinethat such actions will continue to continue.reduce consumption levels.

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

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

Minimum Retail Selling Price Laws.  Several EU Member States have enacted laws establishing a minimum retail selling price for cigarettes For further discussion, see Tobacco Business Environment—Excise Taxes in “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” in some cases, other tobacco products. The European Commission has commenced proceedings against these Member States, claiming that minimum retail selling price systems infringe EU law. If the European Commission’s infringement actions are successful, they could adversely impact excise tax levels and/or price gaps in those markets.2008 Annual Report.

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

Counterfeit Cigarettes in International Markets.  Large quantities of counterfeit cigarettes are sold USSTC faces significant competition in the international market. PMI believes thatMarlboro is the most heavily counterfeited international brand. PMI cannot quantify the amount of revenue it loses as a result of this activity.moist smokeless tobacco category, both from existing competitors and new entrants, and has experienced consumer down trading to lower-priced brands.

Governmental Investigations. From time to time, ALGAltria Group, Inc. and its tobacco subsidiaries are subject to governmental investigations on a range of matters. Ongoing investigations include allegations of

-17-

contraband shipments of cigarettes and allegations of unlawful pricing activities within certain international markets. We cannot predict the outcome of those investigations or whether additional investigations may be commenced, and it is possible that our businesstobacco subsidiaries’ businesses could be materially affected by an unfavorable outcome of pending or future investigations.

New Tobacco Product Technologies. Our tobaccoAltria Group, Inc.’s subsidiaries continue to seek ways to develop and to commercialize new tobacco product technologies that havemay reduce the objective of reducinghealth risks associated with the tobacco products they manufacture, while continuing to offer adult consumers tobacco products that meet their taste expectations. Potential solutions being researched include tobacco products that reduce or eliminate exposure to cigarette smoke, and/or those constituents in tobacco smoke identified by public health authorities as harmful while continuing to offer adult smokers products that meet their taste expectations. We cannot guarantee that our tobaccoharmful. Our subsidiaries willmay not succeed in these efforts. If they do not succeed, but one or more of their competitors do,does, our tobacco subsidiaries may be at a competitive disadvantage. Further, we cannot predict whether regulators will permit the marketing of tobacco products with claims of reduced risk to consumers or whether consumers’ purchase decisions would be affected by such claims, which could affect the commercial viability of any tobacco products that might be developed.

-12-

PM USA

Adjacency Strategy. Altria Group, Inc. and PMIits subsidiaries have adjacency growth strategies involving moves and potential moves into complementary tobacco or tobacco-related products or processes. We cannot guarantee that these strategies, or any products introduced in connection with these strategies, will be successful.

Foreign CurrencyTobacco Price, Availability and Quality. Any significant change in tobacco leaf prices, quality or availability could affect our tobacco subsidiaries’ profitability and business. For a discussion of factors that influence leaf prices, availability and quality, see Tobacco Business Environment—Tobacco Price, Availability and Quality in “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” in the 2008 Annual Report.

Attracting and Retaining Talent. Our international foodability to implement our strategy of attracting and retaining the best talent may be impaired by the decreasing social acceptance of tobacco usage. The tobacco industry competes for talent with the consumer products industry and other companies that enjoy greater societal acceptance. As a result, our tobacco subsidiaries conduct their businesses in local currencymay be unable to attract and for purposes of financial reporting, their results are translated into U.S. dollars based on average exchange rates prevailing during a reporting period. During times of a strengthening U.S. dollar, our reported net revenues and operating income will be reduced becauseretain the local currency will translate into fewer U.S. dollars.best talent.

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

The willingness of consumers to purchase premium cigarette brands and premium food and beverageconsumer product brands depends in part on local economic conditions. In periods of economic uncertainty, consumers tend tomay purchase more private label and other economydiscount brands andand/or, in the volumecase of tobacco products, consider lower price tobacco products. The volumes of our consumer products subsidiaries could suffer accordingly.

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

Grocery Trade ConsolidationAcquisitions. As the retail grocery trade continues to consolidate and retailers grow larger and become more sophisticated, they demand lower pricing and increased promotional programs. Further, these customers are reducing their inventories and increasing their emphasis on private label products. If Kraft fails to use its scale, marketing expertise, branded products and category leadership positions to respond to these trends, its volume growth could slow or it may need to lower prices or increase promotional support of its products, any of which would adversely affect our profitability.

-18-

Continued Need to Add Food and Beverage Products in Faster Growing and More Profitable Categories.  The food and beverage industry’s growth potential is constrained by population growth. Kraft’s success depends in part on its ability to grow its business faster than populations are growing in the markets that it serves. One way to achieve that growth is to enhance its portfolio by adding products that are in faster growing and more profitable categories. If Kraft does not succeed in making these enhancements, its volume growth may slow, which would adversely affect our profitability.

Strengthening Brand Portfolios Through Acquisitions and Divestitures.  One element of the growth strategy of our consumer product subsidiaries is to strengthen their brand portfolios and/or expand their geographic reach through active programs of selective acquisitions and divestitures. These subsidiaries are constantly investigating potential acquisition candidates andAltria Group, Inc. from time to time theyconsiders acquisitions as part of its adjacency strategy. From time to time we may sell businessesengage in confidential acquisition negotiations that are outside their core categoriesnot publicly announced unless and until those negotiations result in a definitive agreement. Although we seek to maintain or improve our debt ratings over time, it is possible that do not meet their growthcompleting a given acquisition or profitability targets. Acquisitionother event could impact our debt ratings or the outlook for those ratings. Furthermore, acquisition opportunities are limited, and acquisitions present risks of failing to achieve efficient and effective integration, strategic objectives and anticipated revenue improvements and cost savings. There can be no assurance that we will be able to continue to acquire attractive businesses on favorable terms, that we will realize any of the anticipated benefits from an acquisition or that all future acquisitions will be quickly accretive to earnings.

Food Raw Material PricesUST Acquisition. The raw materials used by our food businesses are largely commoditiesThere can be no assurance that experience price volatility caused by external conditions, commodity market fluctuations, currency fluctuations and changes in governmental agricultural programs. Commodity price changes may result in unexpected increases in raw material and packaging costs (which are significantly affected by oil costs), and our operating subsidiaries maywe will achieve the synergies expected of the UST acquisition or that the integration of UST will be unable to increase their prices to offset these increased costs without suffering reduced volume, net revenues and operating companies income. We do not fully hedge against changes in commodity prices and our hedging strategies may not work as planned.successful.

-13-

Food Safety, Quality and Health ConcernsCapital Markets. We could be adversely affected if consumers in Kraft’s principalAccess to the capital markets lose confidenceis important for us to satisfy our liquidity and financing needs. Disruption and uncertainty in the safetycapital markets and qualityany resulting tightening of certain food products. Adverse publicity about these types of concerns, whether credit availability, pricing and/or not valid,credit terms may discourage consumers from buying Kraft’s productsincrease our costs and adversely affect our earnings or cause production and delivery disruptions. Recent publicity concerning the health implications of obesity and trans- fatty acids could also reduce consumption of certain of Kraft’s products. In addition, Kraft may need to recall some of its products if they become adulterated or misbranded. Kraft may also be liable if the consumption of any of its products causes injury. A widespread product recall or a significant product liability judgment could cause products to be unavailable for a period of time and a loss of consumer confidence in Kraft’s food products and could have a material adverse effect on Kraft’s business and results.our dividend rate.

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

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

-19-

(“SILO”) transactions). PMCC believes that the position and supporting case law described in the RAR, Revenue Rulings and the IRS Notice are incorrectly applied to PMCC’s transactions and that its leveraged leases are factually and legally distinguishable in material respects from the IRS’s position. PMCC and ALG intend to vigorously defend against any challenges based on that position through litigation. In this regard, on October 16, 2006, PMCC filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York to claim refunds for a portion of these tax payments and associated interest and intends to file complaints for the remainder. However, should PMCC’s position not be upheld, PMCClitigation, Altria Group, Inc. may have to accelerate the payment of significant amounts of federal income tax and significantly lower its earnings to reflect the recalculation of the income from the affected leveraged leases, which could have a material effect on the earnings and cash flows of Altria Group, Inc. in a particular fiscal quarter or fiscal year. PMCC considered this matter in its adoption of FIN 48For further discussion see Note 20.Contingencies to our consolidated financial statements and FASB Staff Position No. FAS 13-2.Item 3.Legal Proceedings.

Item 1B.Unresolved Staff Comments.Wine—Competition; Grape Supply; Regulation and Excise Taxes. As previously noted, Ste. Michelle’s business is subject to significant competition, including from many large, well-established national and international organizations. The adequacy of Ste. Michelle’s grape supply is influenced by consumer demand for wine in relation to industry-wide production levels as well as by weather and crop conditions, particularly in eastern Washington state. Supply shortages related to any one or more of these factors could increase production costs and wine prices, which ultimately may have a negative impact on Ste. Michelle’s sales. In addition, federal, state and local governmental agencies regulate the alcohol beverage industry through various means, including licensing requirements, pricing, labeling and advertising restrictions, and distribution and production policies. New regulations or revisions to existing regulations, resulting in further restrictions or taxes on the manufacture and sale of alcoholic beverages, may have an adverse effect on Ste. Michelle’s wine business.

None.

Item 2.

Properties.

The property in Richmond, Virginia that serves as the headquarters facility for Altria Group, Inc., PM USA and certain other subsidiaries is under lease.

Tobacco Products

At December 31, 2008, PM USA ownsowned and operates sixoperated five tobacco manufacturing and processing facilities – fivefacilities—four in the Richmond, Virginia area and one in Cabarrus County, North Carolina. In April 2005,addition, PM USA announced the construction ofowns a research and technology center in Richmond, Virginia. PM USA is in the process of closing its Cabarrus, North Carolina manufacturing facility and consolidating cigarette manufacturing for the U.S. market at its Richmond, Virginia which is estimatedmanufacturing center. In 2007, PM USA decided to cost $350 million. When completedconsolidate its manufacturing in 2007, the facility will nearly doubleresponse to declining U.S. cigarette volume and notice from PMI that it would no longer source cigarettes from PM USA. PM USA’s research spacecigarette production for PMI, which ended in December 2008, approximated 21 billion and will house more than 500 scientists, engineers57 billion cigarettes in 2008 and support staff.2007, respectively. PM USA expects to close its Cabarrus manufacturing facility by the end of 2010.

SubsidiariesMiddleton owns and affiliatesoperates two manufacturing facilities—one in King of PMI own, lease or have an interestPrussia, Pennsylvania and one in 71 cigarette or component manufacturing facilities in 34 countries outside the United States, including cigarette manufacturing facilities in Bergen Op Zoom, the Netherlands; Berlin, Germany; and St. Petersburg, Russia. In 2006, PMI continued to invest in and expand its international manufacturing base, including making significant investments in facilities located in Germany, Russia, Greece, Serbia, Ukraine and Australia, as well as a research facility in Switzerland.

Food Products

Kraft has 159 manufacturing and processing facilities, 54 of which are located in the United States. Kraft owns 154 and leases 5 of these facilities. Outside the United States, Kraft has 105 manufacturing and processing facilities located in 42 countries. In addition, Kraft has 327 distribution centers and depots, of which 31 are located outside the United States. Kraft owns 47 distribution centers and depots, with the remainder being leased.

In January 2004, Kraft announced a three-year restructuring program and in January 2006, it announced plans to expand its restructuring efforts through 2008. The entire restructuring program is expected to result in the closure of up to 40 facilities. In 2006, Kraft announced the closing of 8 plants, for a total of 27 since the commencement of the restructuring program in January 2004.

GeneralLimerick, Pennsylvania.

The plants and properties owned or leased and operated by ALG’sAltria Group, Inc. and its subsidiaries are maintained in good condition and are believed to be suitable and adequate for present needs.

-20--14-

Item 3.Legal Proceedings.

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

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 or 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.

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 43 states now limit the dollar amount of bonds or require no bond at all.

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 Item 3.Legal Proceedings: (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 of any of the pending tobacco-related cases; and (iii) accordingly, management has not provided any amounts in the consolidated financial statements for unfavorable outcomes, if any. Legal defense costs are expensed as incurred.

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. Nevertheless, although litigation is subject to uncertainty, management believes the litigation environment has substantially improved in recent years. 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. All such cases are, and will continue to be, vigorously defended. 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.

-15-

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,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,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,profits; (iv) class action suits alleging that the uses of the terms “Lights” and “Ultra Lights” constitute deceptive and unfair trade practices, common law fraud, or violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”),; and (v) other tobacco-related litigation described below. Damages claimed in some of the tobacco-related litigation range into the billions of dollars. Plaintiffs’ theories of recovery and the defenses raised in pending smoking and health, health care cost recovery and Lights/“Lights/Ultra LightsLights” cases are discussed below.

The table below lists the number of certain tobacco-related cases pending in the United States against PM USA and, in some instances, ALG or PMI,Altria Group, Inc. as of February 15, 2007,24, 2009, December 31, 20052008 and December 31, 2004, and a page-reference to further discussions of each type of case.2007.

-21-

-16-

There are also a number of other tobacco-related actions pending outside the United States against PMI and its affiliates and subsidiaries, including an estimated 130 individual smoking and health cases as of February 15, 2007 (Argentina (56), Australia (2), Brazil (56), Chile (6), Costa Rica (1), France (1), Italy (5), the Philippines (1), Poland (1) and Scotland (1), compared with approximately 132 such cases on December 31, 2005, and approximately 121 such cases on December 31, 2004. In addition, in Italy, 17 cases are pending in the Italian equivalent of small claims court where damages are limited to€2,000 per case, and three cases are pending in Finland and one in Israel against defendants that are indemnitees of a subsidiary of PMI.International Tobacco-Related Cases

In addition, asAs of February 15, 2007, there were24, 2009, PM USA is a named defendant in a “Lights” class action in Israel and a health care cost recovery action in Israel. PM USA is a named defendant in two smoking and health putative class actions pending outside the United States against PMI in Brazil (1) and Israel (1) compared with three such cases on December 31, 2005, and three such cases on December 31, 2004. Three health care cost recovery actions are pending in Israel (1), Canada, (1) and France (1), against PMI or its affiliates, and two Lights/Ultra Lights class actions are pending in Israel.

one of which also names Altria Group, Inc. as a defendant.

Pending and Upcoming Trials

As of December 31, 2006, sixFebruary 24, 2009, 57 Engle-progeny cases against PM USA are set for trial in 2009 (7 of the 57 cases have scheduled 2009 trial dates). In addition, there are currently 5 individual smoking and health cases against PM USA are scheduled for trial in 2007. Trial in an individual smoking and health case in California (Whiteley) began on January 22, 2007.2009. Cases against other tobacco companies are also scheduled for trial through the end of 2007.2009. Trial dates are subject to change.

Recent Trial Results

Since January 1999, verdicts have been returned in 4546 smoking and health, Lights/“Lights/Ultra LightsLights” and health care cost recovery cases in which PM USA was a defendant. Verdicts in favor of PM USA and other defendants were returned in 28 of the 4546 cases. These 28 cases were tried in California (4), Florida (9), Mississippi (1), Missouri (2), New Hampshire (1), New Jersey (1), New York (3), Ohio (2), Pennsylvania (1), Rhode Island (1), Tennessee (2), and West Virginia (1). Plaintiffs’ appeals or post-trial motions challenging the verdicts are pending in California, the District of Columbia, Florida and Missouri. A motion for a new trial has beenwas granted in one of the cases in Florida. In addition, in December 2002, a court dismissed an individual smoking and health case in California at the end of trial.

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

Of the 1718 cases in which verdicts were returned in favor of plaintiffs, eight have reached final resolution. A verdict against defendants in aone health care cost recovery case has been reversed and all claims were dismissed with prejudice. In addition, a verdict against defendants in a purported Lights“Lights” class action in Illinois has been(Price) was reversed and the case has beenwas dismissed with prejudice.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 inGood and Price). After exhausting all appeals, PM USA has paid six judgments totaling $71,476,238,$73.6 million and interest totaling $33,799,281.$35.1 million.

-22--17-

The chart below lists the verdicts and post-trial developments in 12the ten pending cases that have gone to trial since January 1999 in which verdicts were returned in favor of plaintiffs.

-18-

-23-

-24--19-

-25--20-

-21-

-26-

-22-

-27-

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

With respect to certain adverse verdicts currently on appeal, excluding amounts relating to theEngle case,To obtain stays of judgments pending current appeals, as of December 31, 2006,February 24, 2009, PM USA has posted various forms of security totaling approximately $194$129 million, the majority of which havehas been collateralized with cash deposits to obtain stays of judgments pending appeals. The cash depositsthat are included in other assets on the consolidated balance sheets.

Engle Class Action

In July 2000, in the second phase of the Engle smoking and health class action in Florida, a jury returned a verdict assessing punitive damages totaling approximately $145 billion against various defendants, including $74 billion against PM USA. Following entry of judgment, PM USA posted a bond in the amount of $100 million and appealed.

In May 2001, the trial court approved a stipulation providing that execution of the punitive damages component of the Engle judgment will remain stayed against PM USA and the other participating defendants through the completion of all judicial review. As a result of the stipulation, PM USA placed $500 million into a separate interest-bearing escrow account that, regardless of the outcome of the appeal,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 will bewas returned to PM USA should it prevail in its appeal ofDecember 2007. In addition, the case. (The $1.2 billion escrow account is included in$100 million bond related to the December 31, 2006 and December 31, 2005 consolidated balance sheets as other assets. Interest income on the $1.2 billion escrow account is paid to PM USA quarterly and is being recorded as earned, in interest and other debt expense, net, in the consolidated statements of earnings.)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.

-28--23-

In July 2006, the Florida Supreme Court ordered that the punitive damages award be vacated, that the class approved by the trial court be decertified, and that members of the decertified class could file individual actions against defendants within one year of issuance of the mandate. The court further declared the following Phase I findings are entitled to res judicata effect in such individual actions brought within one year of the issuance of the mandate: (i) that smoking causes various diseases; (ii) that nicotine in cigarettes is addictive; (iii) that defendants’ cigarettes were defective and unreasonably dangerous; (iv) that defendants concealed or omitted material information not otherwise known or available knowing that the material was false or misleading or failed to disclose a material fact concerning the health effects or addictive nature of smoking; (v) that all defendants agreed to misrepresent information regarding the health effects or addictive nature of cigarettes with the intention of causing the public to rely on this information to their detriment; (vi) that defendants agreed to conceal or omit information regarding the health effects of cigarettes or their addictive nature with the intention that smokers would rely on the information to their detriment; (vii) that all defendants sold or supplied cigarettes that were defective; and (viii) that all defendants were negligent. The court also reinstated compensatory damage awards totaling approximately $6.9 million to two individual plaintiffs and found that a third plaintiff’s claim was barred by the statute of limitations. It is too earlyIn February 2008, PM USA paid a total of $2,964,685, which represents its share of compensatory damages and interest to predict how many members of the decertified class will filetwo individual claimsplaintiffs identified in the prescribed time period.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 byEngle 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. OnIn January 11, 2007, the Florida Supreme Court issued the mandate from its revised opinion. On January 12, 2007, defendantsDefendants 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. OnIn February 21, 2007, the Third District Court of Appeal denied defendants’ motion. Defendants intendIn 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 on January 11, 2008. As of February 24, 2009, approximately 3,199 cases (3,149 state court cases and 50 federal court cases) were pending against PM USA or Altria Group, Inc. asserting individual claims by or on behalf of approximately 8,754 plaintiffs (4,836 state court plaintiffs and 3,918 federal court plaintiffs). It is possible that some of these cases are duplicates and additional cases have been filed but not yet recorded on the courts’ dockets. Some of these cases have been removed from various Florida state courts to seek further appellatethe 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

-24-

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 damage 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 theEngle 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 on January 7, 2009.

Three federal district courts (in theMerlob, Brown and Burr cases) have 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) have been certified by the trial court for interlocutory review. The certification in both cases has been granted by the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit and the appeals have been consolidated. On February 10, 2009, the appeal inBurr was dismissed for lack of prosecution.Engle progeny cases pending in the federal district courts in the Middle District of Florida asserting individual claims by or on behalf of approximately 4,000 plaintiffs have been stayed pending interlocutory review by the Eleventh Circuit. Several state trial court judges have issued contrary rulings that allowed plaintiffs to use the Engle findings to establish elements of their claims and required certain defenses to be stricken.

Scott Class Action

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

In June 2004, the court entered judgment, which awarded plaintiffs the approximately $590 million jury award plus prejudgment interest accruing from the date the suit commenced. As of February 15, 2007, the amount of prejudgment interest was approximately $444 million. PM USA’s share of the jury award and prejudgment interest has not been allocated. Defendants, including PM USA, appealed. Pursuant to a stipulation of the parties, the trial court entered an order setting the amount of the bond at $50 million for all defendants in accordance with an article of the Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure,

-29-

and a Louisiana statute (the “bond cap law”), fixing the amount of security in civil cases involving a signatory to the MSA (as defined below). Under the terms of the stipulation, plaintiffs reserve the right to contest, at a later date, the sufficiency or amount of the bond on any grounds including the applicability or constitutionality of the bond cap law. In September 2004, defendants collectively posted a bond in the amount of $50 million.

In February 2007, the Louisiana Court of Appeal issued a ruling on defendants’ appeal that, among other things: affirmed class certification but limited the scope of the class; struck certain of the categories of damages that comprisedincluded 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

-25-

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. Following the Louisiana Supreme Court’s denial of defendants’ petition for writ of certiorari, PM USA recorded a provision of $26 million in connection with the case. 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 intendfiled a motion to seek further appellate review.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 defendant’s 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 of $87.7 million (as of December 31, 2008) while stating, however, that the judgment award “may be satisfied with something less than a full cash payment now” and that the court would “favorably consider” returning unused funds annually to defendants if monies allocated for that year were not fully expended.

In September 2008, defendants filed an application for writ of mandamus or supervisory writ to secure the right to appeal with the Louisiana Circuit Court of Appeals. The appellate court, on November 17, 2008, granted the defendants’ writ and directed the trial court to enter an order permitting the appeal and to set the appeal bond in accordance with Louisiana law. Plaintiffs’ supervisory writ petition to the Louisiana Supreme Court was denied on December 10, 2008. On December 15, 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.

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.

In July 2008, the New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department inFabiano, an individual personal injury case, held that plaintiffs’ punitive damages claim was barred by the MSA (as defined below) based on principles of res judicata because the New York Attorney General had already litigated the punitive damages claim on behalf of all New York residents. In August 2008, plaintiffs filed a motion for permission to appeal to the Court of Appeals. The motion was denied on November 13, 2008.

-26-

Smoking and Health Class Actions

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

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

A smoking and healthTwo purported class action isactions pending against PM USA have been brought in Brazil. Plaintiff is a consumer organization, the Smoker Health Defense AssociationNew York (ADESFCaronia,), which filed a claim against Souza Cruz, S.A. and Philip Morris Marketing, S.A. (now Philip Morris Brasil Industria e Commercio Ltda.) at the 19^th Civil Court of São Paulo. Trial and appellate courts found that the action could proceed as a class under the Brazilian Consumer Defense Code. Philip Morris Brasil Industria e Commercio Ltda. appealed this

-30-

decision and this appeal is pending before the Supreme Federal Court in Brazil. In addition, in February 2004, the trial court awarded the equivalent of approximately R$1,000 (with the current exchange rate, approximately U.S. $450) per smoker per full year of smoking for moral damages plus interest at the rate of 1% per month, as of the date of the ruling. The court order contemplates a second stage of the case in which individuals are to file their claims. Material damages, if any, will be assessed in this second phase. Defendants have appealed this decision to the São Paulo Court of Appeals, and execution of the judgment has been stayed until the appeal is resolved.

In January 2006 plaintiffs brought a putative class action(Caronia) in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New YorkYork) and Massachusetts (Donovan, filed in December 2006, in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts) on behalf of New Yorkeach state’s respective residents who: are age 50 or older; have smoked theMarlboro brand for 20 pack-years or more; and have neither been diagnosed with lung cancer nor are under examinationinvestigation by a physician for suspected lung cancer. Plaintiffs in these cases seek to impose liability under various product-based causes of action and the creation of a court-supervised program providing members of the purported class Low Dose CT Scanning in order to identify and diagnose lung cancer. Neither claim seeks punitive damages. Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification and defendant’s motion for summary judgment are pending in Caronia. Defendants’ motions for summary judgment and judgment on the pleadings and plaintiffs’ motion for class certification are pending in Donovan. In Donovan, the district court entered an order on December 31, 2008 expressing an intention to certify questions to the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts regarding the medical monitoring and statute of limitations issues.

Espinosa Class Action

In December 2006, plaintiffs brought this putativeOn November 17, 2008, a purported class action againstnaming PM USA, Altria Group, Inc. and the other major cigarette manufacturers as defendants was filed in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois on behalf of individuals from throughout Illinois and/or the United States who purchased cigarettes manufactured by certain defendants from 1996 through the date of any judgment in plaintiffs’ favor. Excluded from the purported class are any individuals who allege personal injury or health care costs. The complaint alleges, among other things, that defendants were negligent and violated the Illinois consumer fraud statute by certain defendants’ steadily and purposefully increasing the nicotine level and absorption of their cigarettes into the human body, including in brands most popular with young people and minorities. On January 12, 2007, PM USA removed the case to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.Georgia on behalf of a purported class of cigarette smokers who seek medical monitoring (Peoples). Plaintiffs allege that the tobacco companies conspired to convince the National Cancer Institute (“NCI”) to not recommend spiral CT scans to screen for lung cancer and plaintiffs assert claims based on defendants’ purported violations of RICO. The complaint identifies the purported class as all residents of the State of Georgia who, by virtue of their age and history of smoking cigarettes, are at increased risk for developing lung cancer; are 50 years of age or older; have cigarette smoking histories of 20 pack-years or more; and are covered by an insurance company, Medicare, Medicaid or a third party medical payor. Plaintiffs seek relief in the form of the creation of a fund for medical monitoring and punitive damages.

Health Care Cost Recovery Litigation

Overview

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

-27-

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

-31-

standing and injury, federal preemption, lack of statutory authority to bring suit, and statutes of limitations. In addition, defendants argue that they should be entitled to “set off” any alleged damages to the extent the plaintiffs benefit economically from the sale of cigarettes through the receipt of excise taxes or otherwise. Defendants also argue that these cases are improper because plaintiffs must proceed under principles of subrogation and assignment. Under traditional theories of recovery, a payor of medical costs (such as an insurer) can seek recovery of health care costs from a third party solely by “standing in the shoes” of the injured party. Defendants argue that plaintiffs should be required to bring any actions as subrogees of individual health care recipients and should be subject to all defenses available against the injured party.

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

In March 1999, in the first health care cost recovery case to go to trial, an Ohio jury returned a verdict in favor of defendants on all counts. In addition, a $17.8 million verdict against defendants (including $6.8 million against PM USA) was reversed in a health care cost recovery case in New York, and all claims were dismissed with prejudice in February 2005 (Blue Cross/Blue Shield). The trial in the health care cost recovery case brought by the City of St. Louis, Missouri and approximately 5040 Missouri hospitals, in which PM USA and ALGAltria Group, Inc. are defendants, remains pending without a trial date.is scheduled to begin on June 7, 2010.

Individuals and associations have also sued in purported class actions or as private attorneys general under the Medicare Asas Secondary Payer statute(“MSP”) provisions of the Social Security Act to recover from defendants Medicare expenditures allegedly incurred for the treatment of smoking-related diseases. Cases brought in New York (Mason), Florida (Glover) and Massachusetts (United Seniors Association) have been dismissed by federal courts,courts. In April 2008, an action, National Committee to Preserve Social Security and plaintiffs’ appealMedicare, et al. v. Philip Morris USA, et al. (“National Committee I”), was brought under the Medicare as Secondary Payer statute inUnited Seniors Associationis pending. the Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit of and for Miami County, Florida, but was dismissed voluntarily in May 2008. The action purported to be brought on behalf of Medicare to recover an unspecified amount of damages equal to double the amount paid by Medicare for smoking-related health care services provided from April 19, 2002 to the present.

A number of foreign governmental entities have filed health care cost recovery actionsIn May 2008, an action, National Committee to Preserve Social Security, et al. v. Philip Morris USA, et al., was brought under the Medicare as Secondary Payer statute in the United States. Such suits have been brought in the United States by 13 countries, a Canadian province, 11 Brazilian states and 11 Brazilian cities. AllDistrict Court for the Eastern District of these 36 cases have been dismissed. On February 23, 2007, the Delaware Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of the two remaining cases on appeal (broughtNew York. This action was brought by the Republicsame plaintiffs as National Committee I and similarly purports to be brought on behalf of PanamaMedicare to recover an unspecified amount of damages equal to double the amount paid by Medicare for smoking-related health care

-28-

services provided from May 21, 2002 to the present. In July 2008, defendants filed a motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ claims and the Brazilian State of São Paulo). plaintiffs filed a motion for partial summary judgment. The court heard argument on both motions on November 20, 2008.

In addition to the cases brought in the United States, health care cost recovery actions have also been brought against tobacco industry participants, including PM USA, PMI and certain PMI subsidiaries in Israel (1), the Marshall Islands (1 dismissed), and Canada (1), and France (1 dismissed, but subject to possible further appeal),(2) and other entities have stated that they are considering filing such actions. In September 2005, in the casefirst of the two health care 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 USAUSA’s and other defendants’ challenge to the British ColumbianColumbia court’s exercise of jurisdiction was rejected by the Court of Appeals of British Columbia and, defendants have sought leave to appeal the issue toin April 2007, the Supreme Court of Canada.Canada denied review of that decision. 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. Altria Group, Inc. and PM USA are named as defendants in New Brunswick’s case. Several other provinces in Canada have enacted similar legislation or are in the process of enacting similar legislation. See “Third-Party 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 Master Settlement Agreement (the “MSA”) with 46 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Guam, the United States Virgin Islands, American Samoa and the Northern Marianas to settle asserted and unasserted health care cost recovery and other claims. PM USA and certain other United States tobacco product manufacturers had previously settled similar claims brought by

-32-

Mississippi, Florida, Texas and Minnesota (together with the MSA, the “State Settlement Agreements”). The State Settlement Agreements require that the domestic tobacco industryoriginal participating manufacturers make substantial annual payments in the following amountsof $9.4 billion each year (excluding future annual payments, if any, under the National Tobacco Grower Settlement Trust discussed below), subject to adjustments for several factors, including inflation, market share and industry volume: 2007, $8.4 billion and thereafter, $9.4 billion each year.volume. In addition, the domestic tobacco industry isoriginal participating manufacturers are required to pay settling plaintiffs’ attorneys’ fees, subject to an annual cap of $500 million.

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

Possible Adjustments in MSA Payments for 2003, 2004, 2005 and 20042006

Pursuant to the provisions of the MSA, domestic tobacco product manufacturers, including PM USA, who are original signatories to the MSA (“OPMs”(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 the years 2003, 2004, 2005 and 2004.2006. The proceedings are based on the collective loss of market share in each offor 2003, 2004, 2005 and 20042006, respectively, 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.

In 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

-29-

disadvantages of the MSA were a “significant factor” contributing to the collective loss of market share for the year in question. If the firm determines that the disadvantages of the MSA were such a “significant factor,” each state may avoid a downward adjustment to its share of the OPMs’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 those states that do not establish such diligent enforcement. PM USA believes that the MSA’s arbitration clause requires a state to submit its claim to have diligently enforced a qualifying escrow statute to binding arbitration before a panel of three former federal judges in the manner provided for in the MSA. A number of states have taken the position that this claim should be decided in state court on a state-by-state basis.

In March of 2006, an independent economic consulting firm determined that the disadvantages of the MSA were a significant factor contributing to the participating manufacturers’ collective loss of market share for the year 2003. OnIn February 12, 2007, this same firm determined that the disadvantages of the MSA were a significant factor contributing to the participating manufacturers’ collective loss of market share for the year 2004. In February 2008, the same economic consulting firm determined that the disadvantages of the MSA were a significant factor contributing to the participating manufacturers’ collective loss of market share for the year 2005. A different economic consulting firm has been selected to make the “significant factor” determination regarding the participating manufacturers’ collective loss of market share for the year 2006. The new firm’s decision with respect to 2006 is expected in March 2009.

Following the economic consulting firm’s determination with respect to 2003, thirty-eight states filed declaratory judgment actions in state courts seeking a declaration that the state diligently enforced its escrow statute during 2003. The OPMs and other MSA-participating manufacturers have responded to these actions by filing motions to compel arbitration in accordance with the terms of the MSA, including filing motions to compel arbitration in eleven MSA states and territories that have not filed declaratory judgment actions. Courts in all 46 MSA states and the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico have ruled that the question of whether a state diligently enforced its escrow statute during 2003 is subject to arbitration. Several of these rulings remain subject to appeal or further review. Additionally, Ohio filed a declaratory judgment action in state court with respect to the 2004 diligent enforcement issue. The action has been stayed pending the decision about the 2003 payments. PM USA, the other OPMs and approximately 25 other MSA-participating manufacturers have entered into an agreement regarding arbitration with over 40 MSA states concerning the 2003 NPM adjustment. The agreement provides for selection of the arbitration panel for the 2003 NPM adjustment beginning by October 1, 2009 and for the arbitration then to proceed. The agreement further provides for a partial liability reduction for the 2003 NPM adjustment of a specified percentage 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 (45)), the percentage 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 issue of what forum will determine the states’ diligent enforcement claims, and the availability and the precise amount of any NPM Adjustmentadjustment for either 2003, or 2004, 2005 and 2006 will not be finally determined until late 20072010 or thereafter. There is no certainty that the OPMs and other MSA-participating manufacturers will ultimately receive any adjustment as a result of these proceedings. If the OPMs do receive such an adjustment through these proceedings, the adjustment would likely be applied as a credit against future MSA payments and would be allocated among the OPMs pursuant to the MSA’s provisions, for allocation of the NPM Adjustment among the OPMs.and PM USA’s share would likely be applied as a credit against one or several future MSA payments.

-33-

National Grower Settlement Trust

As part of the MSA, the settling defendants committed to work cooperatively with the tobacco-growing states to address concerns about the potential adverse economic impact of the MSA on

-30-

tobacco growers and quota holders. To that end, in 1999, four of the major domestic tobacco product manufacturers, including PM USA, established the National Tobacco Grower Settlement Trust (“NTGST”), a trust fund to provide aid to tobacco growers and quota holders. The trust was to be funded by these four manufacturers over 12 years with payments, prior to application of various adjustments, scheduled to total $5.15 billion. Provisions of the NTGST allowed for offsets to the extent that industry-funded payments were made for the benefit of growers or quota holders as part of a legislated end to the federal tobacco quota and price support program.

In October 2004, the Fair and Equitable Tobacco Reform Act of 2004 (“FETRA”) was signed into law. FETRA provides for the elimination of the federal tobacco quota and price support program through an industry-funded buy-out of tobacco growers and quota holders. The cost of the buy-out, which is estimated at approximately $9.5 billion, is being paid over 10 years by manufacturers and importers of each kind of tobacco product. The cost is being allocated based on the relative market shares of manufacturers and importers of each kind of tobacco product. The quota buy-out payments offset already scheduled payments to the NTGST. However, two of the grower states, Maryland and Pennsylvania, have filed claims in the North Carolina state courts, asserting that the companies which established the NTGST (including PM USA) must continue making payments under the NTGST through 2010 for the benefit of Maryland and Pennsylvania growers (such continuing payments would represent slightly more than one percent of the originally scheduled payments that would have been due to the NTGST for the years 2005 through 2010) notwithstanding the offsets resulting from the FETRA payments. The North Carolina trial court held in favor of Maryland and Pennsylvania, and the companies (including PM USA) appealed. The North Carolina Court of Appeals, in December 2008, reversed the trial court ruling. On January 20, 2009, Maryland and Pennsylvania filed a notice of appeal to the North Carolina Supreme Court. In addition to the approximately $9.5 billion cost of the buy-out, FETRA also obligated manufacturers and importers of tobacco products to cover any losses (up to $500 million) that the government incurred on the disposition of tobacco pool stock accumulated under the previous tobacco price support program. PM USA has paid $138 million for its share of the tobacco pool stock losses. ALGThe quota buyout did not have a material impact on Altria Group, Inc.’s 2008 consolidated results and Altria Group, Inc. does not currently anticipate that the quota buy-out will have a material adverse impact on its consolidated results in 20072009 and beyond.

Other MSA-Related Litigation

In April 2004, a lawsuit was filed in state court in Los Angeles, California, on behalf of all California residents who purchased cigarettes in California from April 2000 to the present, alleging that the MSA enabled the defendants, including PM USA and ALG, to engagewas named as a defendant in unlawful price fixing and market sharing agreements. The complaint sought damages and also sought to enjoin defendants from continuing to operate under those provisions of the MSA that allegedly violate California law. In June 2004, plaintiffs dismissed this case and refiled a substantially similar complaintan action brought in October 2008 in federal court in San Francisco, California.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 new complaint is brought on behalfplaintiff alleged that certain of the same purported class but differsMSA’s payment provisions discriminate against it in thatfavor 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, covers purchasestreble 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 June 2000 toenforcing the present, namesallegedly discriminatory payment provisions against it during the Attorney Generalpendency of California asaction. On November 14, 2008, defendants filed a defendant, and does not name ALG as a defendant. In March 2005, the trial court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the case. Plaintiffs have appealed.complaint on various grounds and, on January 5, 2009, the court dismissed the complaint and denied plaintiff’s request for preliminary injunctive relief.

Several actionsIn December 2008, PM USA was named as a defendant in an action seeking declaratory relief under the MSA. The action was filed in California state court by the same MSA participating manufacturer that filed the Kentucky action discussed in the preceding paragraph. Other defendants include the State of California and various other participating manufacturers. The plaintiff is seeking a declaratory judgment that its proposed amended adherence agreement with California and other states that are currently pending challenging the legality of various provisions ofparties to the MSA under various theories. Neither ALG noris consistent with provisions in the MSA, and that the MSA’s limited most

-31-

favored nations provision does not apply to the proposed agreement. Plaintiff seeks no damages in this action. Defendants have not yet responded to the complaint.

Without naming PM USA isor any other private party as a party in these actions. There is a suit pending againstdefendant, manufacturers that have elected not to sign the MSA (“NPMs”) and/or their distributors or customers have filed several legal challenges to the MSA and related legislation. New York state officials are defendants in a lawsuit pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York in which cigarette importers of cigarettes allege that the MSA and/or related legislation violates federal antitrust laws and certainthe Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution. In a separate proceeding pending in the same court, plaintiffs assert the same theories against not only New York statutes enacted in connection withofficials but also the MSA violate federal antitrust and constitutional law.Attorneys General for thirty other states. The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has held that plaintiffs have statedthe allegations in both actions, if proven, establish a claimbasis for relief on antitrust grounds. In September 2004,and Commerce Clause grounds and that the trial court denied plaintiffs’ motion to preliminarily enjoin the MSA and certain relatedcourts in New York statuteshave personal jurisdiction sufficient to enjoin other states’ officials from enforcing their MSA-related legislation. On remand in those two actions, one trial court has granted summary judgment for the New York officials and the other has held that plaintiffs are unlikely to succeed on the grounds that the plaintiffs were unlikely to prove their allegations, but the court issuedmerits. In addition, a preliminary injunction against an amendment repealingNew York officials’ enforcement against plaintiffs of the state’s “allocable share” provision ofamendment to the New YorkMSA’s Model Escrow Statute pending further discovery. The parties’ motions for summary judgment are pending. Additionally, in a separate proceeding pending in New York federal court, plaintiffs seek to enjoin the statutes enacted by New York and 30 other states in connection with the MSA on the grounds that the statutes violate the federal antitrust laws and the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution. In September 2005, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that plaintiffs have stated a claim for relief and that the New Yorkhas been lifted.

-34-

federal court had jurisdiction over the 30 defendant Attorneys General from states other than New York and, in October 2006, the United States Supreme Court denied the Attorneys Generals’ petition for writ of certiorari. In May 2006, the district court denied plaintiffs’ motion for an injunction against enforcement of the Escrow Statute’s “complementary legislation” based on an inability to prove the facts alleged. Plaintiffs have appealed. In March 2006,another action, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed a Louisiana trial court’s dismissal of federal constitutional challenges to certain provisionsMSA-related legislation in Louisiana under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. The case and another challenge to Louisiana’s participation in the MSA and Louisiana’s MSA-related legislation began summary judgment proceedings during the fourth quarter of the MSA. As a result, the case will proceed to trial in federal court beginning in June 2007. Similar lawsuits are pending in other states on similar antitrust, Commerce Clause and/or other constitutional theories, including Arkansas, Kansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma and Tennessee. A similar2008. Another proceeding has been broughtinitiated before an international arbitration tribunal under the provisions of the North American Free Trade Agreement inAgreement. A two-day hearing on the United Nations. The United States Court of Appealsmerits is scheduled for the Sixth Circuit recently affirmed the dismissal of an action in Kentucky. Plaintiff inJune 2009. An appeal from trial court decisions holding that case has petitionedplaintiffs have failed to make allegations establishing a claim for relief is pending with the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. The United States Courts of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit for rehearing en banc.and Ninth Circuits have affirmed the dismissals in two similar challenges. In addition, appeals of cases raising similar constitutional and antitrust challenges to the MSA are currently pending beforeJuly 2008, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second, SixthTenth Circuit affirmed dismissals and Tenth Circuits.summary judgment orders in two cases emanating from Kansas and Oklahoma, and in doing so rejected antitrust and constitutional challenges to the allocable share amendment legislation in those states.

Federal Government’s Lawsuit

In 1999, the United States government filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia against various cigarette manufacturers, including PM USA, and others, including ALG,Altria Group, Inc. asserting claims under three federal statutes, namely the Medical Care Recovery Act (“MCRA”), the Medicare Secondary Payer (“MSP”)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

-32-

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

-35-

operations – 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 ALGAltria 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:

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 aone 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 insureensure optimum nicotine delivery and the

-33-

adverse health effects of exposure to environmental tobacco smoke; (vi) the disclosure on defendants’ public document websites and in the Minnesota document repository of all documents produced to the government in the lawsuit or produced in any future court or administrative action concerning smoking and health until 2021, with certain additional requirements as to documents withheld from production under a claim of privilege or confidentiality; (vii) the disclosure of disaggregated marketing data to the government in the same form and on the same schedule as defendants now follow in disclosing such data to the Federal Trade Commission, for a period of ten years; (viii) certain restrictions on the sale or transfer by defendants of any cigarette brands, brand names, formulas or cigarette businesses within the United States; and (ix) payment of the government’s costs in bringing the action.

In September 2006, defendants filed notices of appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. In September 2006, the trial court denied defendants’ motion to stay the judgment pending defendants’ appeals, and defendants then filed an emergency motion with the Court of Appeals to stay enforcement of the judgment pending their appeals. In October 2006, the

-36-

government filed a notice of appeal toin which it appealed the Courtdenial of Appeals.certain remedies, including the disgorgement of profits and the cessation remedies it had sought. In October 2006, a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals granted defendants’ motion and stayed the trial court’s judgment pending its review of the decision. Certain defendants, including PM USA and ALG, haveAltria Group, Inc., filed a motion to clarify the trial court’s August 2006 Final Judgment and Remedial Order. In March 2007, the trial court denied in part and granted in part defendants’ post-trial motion for clarification of portions of the court’s remedial order. As noted above, the trial court’s judgment and remedial order remain stayed pending the appeal to the Court of Appeals. Oral argument before the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit was heard in October 2008.

“Lights/Ultra LightsLights” Cases

Overview

Plaintiffs in these class actions (some of which have not been certified as such), allege, among other things, that the uses of the terms “Lights” and/or “Ultra Lights” constitute deceptive and unfair trade practices, common law fraud, or RICO violations, and seek injunctive and equitable relief, including restitution and, in certain cases, punitive damages. These class actions have been brought against PM USA and, in certain instances, ALG and PMIAltria 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 andSuperslims, Merit Lights andCambridge 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 Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”), non-liability under state statutory provisions exempting conduct that complies with federal regulatory directives, and the First Amendment. TwentyAs of February 24, 2009, twenty-one cases are pending inas follows: Arkansas (2), Colorado (1), Delaware (1), Florida (1)(2), Illinois (1), Kansas (1), Louisiana (1)(2), Maine (1), Massachusetts (1), Minnesota (1), Missouri (1), New Hampshire (1), New MexicoJersey (1), New JerseyMexico (1), New York (1), Oregon (1), Tennessee (1), WashingtonTexas (1), and West Virginia (2). In addition, there are two casesa purported “Lights” class action is pending against PM USA in Israel. Other entities have stated that they are considering filing such actions against ALG, PMI,Altria Group, Inc. and PM USA.

Recent Cases

Since the December 15, 2008 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Good, four new “Lights” class actions have been served upon PM USA and Altria Group, Inc., one in Illinois state court (Goins), one in Florida federal court (Boyd), one in Colorado federal court (Fray) and one in Texas federal court (Salazar). TheGoins action was subsequently removed to federal court.

-34-

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 on January 18, 2008. The case was stayed pending the United States Supreme Court’s decision. On December 15, 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. On February 17, 2009, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit remandedGood to the district court for further proceedings. Stays entered in various “Lights” cases pending Good have been lifted.

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

To date, trial13 courts in 14 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, Kansas, New Mexico, Oregon, Tennessee, Washington and WashingtonNew Jersey have refused to certify a class, an appellate court in Florida has overturned class certification by a trial court, the Ohio Supreme Court has overturned class certifications in two cases, a trial court in Tennessee has dismissed the plaintiffs’ class action allegations, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has dismissed a purported Lights“Lights” class action brought in Louisiana federal court (Sullivan)Sullivan) on the grounds that plaintiffs’ claims were preempted by the Federal Cigarette Labeling & AdvertisingFCLAA, plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed an action in a federal trial court in Michigan after the court dismissed claims asserted under the Michigan Unfair Trade and Consumer Protection Act, and the Supreme Court of Illinois has overturned a judgment in favor of a plaintiff class in thePrice case which is discussed below. Intermediate(see thePricecase below for further discussion). An intermediate appellate courtscourt in Oregon and the Supreme Court in Washington have denied plaintiffs’ motions for interlocutory review of the trial courts’ refusals to certify a class. Plaintiffs inIn the Oregon case failed(Pearson), 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 to the Oregon Court of Appeals. In February 2008, the parties filed a joint motion to hold the appeal byin abeyance pending the deadline for doing so.United States Supreme Court’s decision in Good, which motion was denied. Plaintiffs in the case in Washington have sought further review.voluntarily dismissed the case with prejudice. Plaintiffs in the New Mexico case renewed their motion for class certification, and the case was stayed pending the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Good. Plaintiffs in the Florida case have(Hines) petitioned the Florida Supreme Court for further review, and in January 2008, the Florida Supreme Court has ordered briefing on why itsdenied this petition.Engleopinion should not control the decision in that case.

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

-37-

In addition to these cases, in December 2005, in theMiner Hines case pending in the United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas, plaintiffs moved for certification of a class composed of individuals who purchasedMarlboro Lights orCambridge Lights brands in Arkansas, California, Colorado, and Michigan. In December 2005, defendants filed a motion to stay plaintiffs’ motion for class certification until the court ruled on PM USA’s motion to transfer venue to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas. This motion was granted in January 2006. PM USA’s motion for summary judgment based on preemption and the Arkansas statutory exemption is pending. Following the filing of this motion, plaintiffs moved to voluntarily dismissMiner without prejudice, which PM USA opposed. The court then stayed the case pending the United States Supreme Court’s decision on a petition for writ of certiorariin Good. On February 6, 2009, the plaintiffs’ class action allegations in the Tennessee case (WatsonMcClure)case. were dismissed with prejudice.

In January 2007,September 2005, a New York federal trial court in Schwab granted in part defendants’ motion for partial summary judgment dismissing plaintiffs’ claims for equitable relief and denied a number of plaintiffs’ motions for summary judgment. In November 2005, the trial court ruled that the plaintiffs would be permitted to calculate damages on an aggregate basis and use “fluid recovery” theories to allocate them among class members. In September 2006, the trial court denied defendants’ summary judgment motions and granted plaintiffs’ motion for certification of a nationwide class of all United States residents that purchased cigarettes in the United States Supreme Court grantedthat were labeled “Light” or “Lights” from the petitionfirst date defendants began selling such cigarettes until the date trial commences. The court also declined to certify the order for writ of certiorari. In addition, plaintiffs’ motions for class certification are pendinginterlocutory appeal, declined to stay the case and ordered jury selection to begin in cases in Kansas, New Jersey, New Mexico and Tennessee.January 2007, with trial scheduled to begin immediately after the jury is

-35-

impaneled. In October 2006, a single judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit granted PM USA’s petition for a temporary stay of pre-trial and trial proceedings pending disposition of the petitions for stay and interlocutory review by a three-judge panel of the Court of Appeals. In November 2006, the Second Circuit granted interlocutory review of the trial court’s class certification order and stayed the case before the trial court pending the appeal. In April 2008, the Second Circuit overturned the trial court’s class certification decision.

The Price Case

Trial in thePrice case commenced in state court in Illinois in January 2003, and in March 2003, the judge found in favor of the plaintiff class and awarded approximately $7.1 billion in compensatory damages and $3 billion in punitive damages against PM USA. In April 2003,connection with the judge reduced the amount of the appeal bond thatjudgment, PM USA must providedeposited into escrow various forms of collateral, including cash and ordered PM USA to place a pre-existing 7.0%, $6 billion long-term note from ALG to PM USA in an escrow account with an Illinois financial institution. (Since this note is the result of an intercompany financing arrangement, it does not appear

-38-

on the consolidated balance sheets of ALG.) The judge’s order also required PM USA to make cash deposits with the clerk of the Madison County Circuit Court in the following amounts: beginning October 1, 2003, an amount equal to the interest earned by PM USA on the ALG note ($210 million every six months), an additional $800 million in four equal quarterly installments between September 2003 and June 2004 and the payments of principal on the note, which are due in April 2008, 2009 and 2010. Plaintiffs appealed the judge’s order reducing the bond. In July 2003, the Illinois Fifth District Court of Appeals ruled that the trial court had exceeded its authority in reducing the bond. In September 2003, the Illinois Supreme Court upheld the reduced bond set by the trial court and announced it would hear PM USA’s appeal on the merits without the need for intermediate appellate court review.negotiable instruments. In December 2005, the Illinois Supreme Court reversedissued its judgment, reversing the trial court’s judgment in favor of the plaintiffs and remanded the case todirecting the trial court with instructions thatto dismiss the case be dismissed.case. In May 2006, the Illinois Supreme Court denied plaintiffs’ motion for rehearing. In June 2006, the Illinois Supreme Court ordered the return to PM USA of approximately $2.2 billion being heldre-hearing, in escrow to secure the appeal bond in the case and terminated PM USA’s obligations to pay administrative fees to the Madison County Clerk. In November 2006, the United States Supreme Court denied plaintiffs’ petition for writ of certiorari and, in December 2006, the Circuit Court of Madison County entered final judgment in favor of PM USAenforced the Illinois Supreme Court’s mandate and dismissed the case with prejudice. In December 2006, the pre-existing 7.0%, $6 billion long-term note from ALG to PM USA that was in escrow pending the outcome of plaintiffs’ petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Supreme Court was returned to PM USA. Plaintiffs haveJanuary 2007, plaintiffs filed a motion to vacate or withdraw thePrice decisionwithhold judgment based upon the United States Supreme Court’s grant of the petition for writ of certiorari in theWatson case discussed above.(discussed below). 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 plaintiff’s motion to vacate or withhold judgment. In connection with the trial court’s initial judgment in 2003, PM USA deposited into escrow various forms of collateral, including cash and negotiable instruments, all of which has since been released and returned to PM USA.

On December 18, 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 15, 2008, decision in Good demonstrated that the Illinois Supreme Court’s decision was “inaccurate.” PM USA filed a motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ petition and, on February 4, 2009, the trial court granted PM USA’s motion.

Trial Court Class Certifications

Trial courts have certified classes against PM USA in Massachusetts (Aspinall), Minnesota (Curtis), and Missouri (Craft). PM USA has filed its oppositionappealed or otherwise challenged these class certification orders. Developments in these cases include:

-36-

In addition to these cases, 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 defendants’ contention that the case must be tried in federal court under the “federal officer” statute. The case has been remanded to the state trial court in Arkansas. In March 2008, the case was stayed pending the outcome of the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Good. In December 2005, in the Miner case, which was pending at that time in the United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas, plaintiffs moved for certification of a class composed of individuals who purchased Marlboro Lights or Cambridge Lights brands in Arkansas, California, Colorado, and Michigan. PM USA’s motion for summary judgment based on preemption and the Arkansas statutory exemption is pending. Following the filing of this motion.motion, plaintiffs moved to voluntarily dismiss Miner without prejudice, which PM USA opposed. The court then stayed the case pending the United States Supreme Court’s decision on a petition for writ of certiorari in Watson. In July 2007, the case was remanded to a state trial court in Arkansas. In August 2007, plaintiffs renewed their motion for class certification. In October 2007, the court denied PM USA’s motion to dismiss on procedural grounds and the court entered a case management order. The case had been stayed pending the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Good.

Certain Other Tobacco-Related Litigation

Tobacco Price Cases: As of December 31, 2006,2008, two separate cases were pending, one in Kansas and one in New Mexico, in which plaintiffs allege that defendants, including PM USA, and PMI, conspired to fix cigarette prices in violation of antitrust laws. ALG and PMI are defendantsAltria Group, Inc. is a defendant in the case in Kansas. Plaintiffs’ motions for class certification have been granted in both cases. In February 2005, the New Mexico Court of Appeals affirmed the class certification decision. In June 2006, defendants’ motion for summary judgment was granted in the New Mexico case. Plaintiffs inOn November 18, 2008, the New Mexico case have appealed.Court of Appeals reversed the trial court decision granting

-37-

Wholesale Leaders Cases:  In June 2003,summary judgment as to certain wholesale distributors of cigarettes filed suit in Tennessee againstdefendants, including PM USA. On January 7, 2009, PM USA seeking to enjoin the PM USA “2003 Wholesale Leaders” (“WL”) program that became available to wholesalers in June 2003. The complaint alleges that the WL program constitutes unlawful price discrimination and is an attempt to monopolize. In addition to an injunction, plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary damages, attorneys’ fees, costs and interest. The states of Tennessee and Mississippi intervened as plaintiffs in this litigation. In August 2003, the trial court issued a preliminary injunction, subject to plaintiffs’ posting a bond in the amount of $1 million, enjoining PM USA from implementing certain discount terms with respect to the sixteen wholesale distributor plaintiffs, and PM USA appealed. In September 2003, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit granted PM USA’s motion to stay the injunction pending PM USA’s expedited appeal. In January 2004, Tennesseeother defendants filed a motion to dismiss its complaint, and its complaint was dismissed without prejudicepetition for writ of certiorari with the New Mexico Supreme Court seeking reversal of the appellate court’s decision. The case in March 2004. In August 2005, theKansas is pending; there is no trial court granted PM USA’s motion for summary judgment, dismissed the case, and dissolved the preliminary injunction. Plaintiffs appealed, and, in April 2006, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit heard oral argument on plaintiffs’ appeal. A decision by the Court of Appeals is pending.date.

Cigarette Contraband CasesInvestigation:: In May 2000 and August 2001, various departments2008, Canadian authorities concluded the investigation relating to allegations of Colombia and the European Community and 10 Member States filed suitscontraband shipments of cigarettes into Canada in the United States against ALGearly to mid-1990s and certainexecuted a complete release of Altria Group, Inc. and its subsidiaries, including PM USA and PMI, and other cigarette manufacturers and theiraffiliates.

-39-

affiliates, alleging that defendants sold to distributors cigarettes that would be illegally imported into various jurisdictions. In February 2002, the federal district court granted defendants’ motions to dismiss the actions. In January 2004, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the dismissals of the cases based on the common law Revenue Rule, which bars a foreign government from bringing civil claims in U.S. courts for the recovery of lost taxes. It is possible that future litigation related to cigarette contraband issues may be brought.

Cases Under the California Business and Professions Code: In June 1997, and July 1998, two suitsa lawsuit (BrownBrown)and Daniels) were 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 in both cases as to plaintiffs’ claims that class members are entitled to reimbursement of the costs of cigarettes purchased during the class periods and injunctive relief. In September 2002, the court granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment as to all claims in one of the cases (Daniels), and plaintiffs appealed. In October 2004, the California Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s ruling, and also denied plaintiffs’ motion for rehearing. In February 2005, the California Supreme Court agreed to hear plaintiffs’ appeal. In September 2004, the trial court in the other case granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment as to plaintiffs’ claims attacking defendants’ cigarette advertising and promotion and denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment on plaintiffs’ claims based on allegedly false affirmative statements. Plaintiffs’ motion for rehearing was denied. In March 2005, the court granted defendants’ motion to decertify the class based on a recent change in California law, which, in two July 2006 opinions, the California Supreme Court ruled applicable to pending cases. Plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration of the order that decertified the class was denied, and plaintiffs have appealed. In September 2006, an intermediate appellate court affirmed the trial court’s order decertifying the class inBrown.class. In November 2006, the California Supreme Court accepted review of the appellate court’s decision. The California Supreme Court is scheduled to hear the appeal on March 3, 2009.

In May 2004, a lawsuit(Gurevitch) was filed in California state court on behalf of a purported class of all California residents who purchased the Merit brand of cigarettes since July 2000 to the present alleging that defendants, including PM USA, violated California’s Business and Professions Code Sections 17200 and 17500 regarding unfair, unlawful and fraudulent business practices, including false and misleading advertising. The complaint also alleges violations of California’s Consumer Legal Remedies Act. Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief, disgorgement, restitution, and attorneys’ fees. In July 2005, defendants’ motion to dismiss was granted; however, plaintiffs’ motion for leave to amend the complaint was also granted, and plaintiffs filed an amended complaint in September 2005. In October 2005, the court stayed this action pending the California Supreme Court’s rulings on two cases not involving PM USA. In July 2006, the California Supreme Court issued rulings in the two cases and held that a recent change in California law known as Proposition 64, which limits the ability to bring a lawsuit to only those plaintiffs who have “suffered injury in fact” and “lost money or property” as a result of defendant’s alleged statutory violations, properly applies to pending cases. In September 2006, the stay was lifted and defendants filed their demurrer to plaintiffs’ amended complaint. In March 2007, the court, without ruling on the demurrer, again stayed the action pending rulings from the California Supreme Court in another case involving Proposition 64 that is relevant to PM USA’s demurrer.

In September 2005, a purported class action lawsuit (Reynolds) was filed by a California consumer against PM USA alleging that PM USA violated certain California consumer protection laws in connection with the alleged expiration of Marlboro Miles’ proofs of purchase, which could be used in accordance with the terms and conditions of certain time-limited promotions to acquire merchandise from Marlboro catalogues. PM USA’s motion to dismiss the case was denied in March 2006. In September 2006, PM USA filed a motion for summary judgment as to plaintiff’s claims for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. In October 2006, PM USA filed a second summary judgment motion seeking dismissal of plaintiff’s claims under certain California consumer protection statutes. In June 2007, the court denied PM USA’s motions for summary judgment. In January 2008, PM USA’s application for interlocutory review by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit was granted. Argument is set for April 17, 2009.

-38-

UST Litigation

Types of Cases

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 three individuals alleging use of UST’s smokeless tobacco products and alleging the types of injuries claimed to be associated with the use of smokeless tobacco products. These individuals also allege the use of other tobacco products.

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, including negligence, gross negligence, strict liability, fraud, misrepresentation, design defect, failure to warn, breach of express and implied warranties, breach of special duty, 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 medical monitoring. Defenses raised in these cases include lack of causation, assumption of the risk, comparative fault and/or contributory negligence, and statutes of limitations. UST is currently named in an action in Florida (Vassallo) and in an action in Connecticut (Hill). TheHill case is set for trial on August 18, 2009.

Antitrust Litigation

Following a previous antitrust action brought against UST by a competitor, Conwood Company L.P., UST was named as a defendant in certain actions brought by indirect purchasers (consumers and retailers) in a number of jurisdictions. As indirect purchasers of UST’s smokeless tobacco products during various periods of time ranging from January 1990 to the date of certification or potential certification of the proposed class, plaintiffs in those actions allege, individually and on behalf of putative class members in a particular state or individually and on behalf of class members in the applicable states, that UST has violated the antitrust laws, unfair and deceptive trade practices statutes and/or common law of those states. In connection with these actions, plaintiffs sought to recover compensatory and statutory damages in an amount not to exceed $75,000 per purported class member or per class member, and certain other relief. The indirect purchaser actions, as filed, were similar in all material respects.

To date, indirect purchaser actions in almost all of the jurisdictions have been resolved, including those subject to court approval. Pursuant to the settlements in all jurisdictions except California, adult consumers received coupons redeemable on future purchases of UST’s moist smokeless tobacco products, and UST agreed to pay all related administrative costs and plaintiffs’ attorneys’ fees.

In September 2007, UST entered into a Settlement Agreement to resolve the California class action. In March 2008, the court entered an order granting final approval of the California settlement, entering judgment and dismissing the settling defendants with prejudice. The court also granted

-39-

plaintiffs’ motion for attorneys’ fees and costs. A Notice of Appeal from the judgment and order granting final approval of the settlement, and order granting plaintiffs’ attorneys’ fees was filed by an individual class member in April 2008.

In January 2008, UST entered into a Settlement Agreement to resolve the New Hampshire action. In July 2008, the court entered a final judgment granting final approval of the settlement, including attorneys’ fees and costs, and dismissing the action with prejudice. A Notice of Appeal was filed by an individual class member in August 2008. Also in January 2008, UST entered into a Settlement Agreement to resolve the Massachusetts class action. In April 2008, the court denied preliminary approval of the Massachusetts settlement but invited the parties to submit an amended settlement agreement to the court for preliminary approval. In connection with the settlements of the New Hampshire action and Massachusetts class action, during the fourth quarter of 2007 UST recognized a liability reflecting the costs attributable to coupons expected to be distributed to consumers, which will be redeemable on future purchases of UST’s moist smokeless tobacco products, as well as plaintiffs’ attorneys’ fees and other administrative costs of the settlements.

In addition, an unresolved action remains in the State of Pennsylvania which is pending in a federal court in Pennsylvania. In this action, UST filed an appeal of the trial court’s denial of UST’s motion to dismiss the complaint. In August 2008, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in UST’s favor, issuing an opinion vacating the trial court’s denial and remanding the case to the trial court to determine whether plaintiffs should be granted permission to amend their complaint. For the plaintiffs in the foregoing action to prevail, they will now have to be granted permission to amend the complaint and then amend such complaint in a manner that satisfies the standards set forth in the August 2008 Third Circuit opinion. The plaintiffs will also have to obtain class certification and favorable determinations on issues relating to liability, causation and damages.

The liability associated with UST’s estimated costs to resolve all indirect purchaser actions decreased to $23.4 million at September 30, 2008, from $75.4 million at December 31, 2007, primarily as a result of a payment made in connection with the California settlement, actual coupon redemption and payments of administrative costs related to previous settlements, partially offset by charges recognized in the first nine months of 2008 reflecting a change in the estimated costs associated with the resolution of certain indirect purchaser antitrust actions.

UST was served with a purported class action complaint filed in federal court in West Virginia, attempting to challenge certain aspects of a prior settlement approved by the Tennessee state court and seeking additional amounts purportedly consistent with subsequent settlements of similar actions, as well as punitive damages and attorneys’ fees. In May 2008, the court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss, thereby dismissing this action with prejudice. In June 2008, plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal. In September 2008, plaintiffs’ motion to voluntarily dismiss their appeal as to UST was granted by the court, thereby dismissing this action as to UST.

Other Litigation

In September 2008, plaintiffs filed a purported class action on behalf of a purported class of UST stockholders in Superior Court in Connecticut to enjoin the proposed acquisition of UST by Altria Group, Inc., alleging, among other things, that UST and/or nine of its directors had violated their fiduciary duties by agreeing to the terms of the acquisition and that Altria Group, Inc. had aided and abetted in the alleged violation. In October 2008, plaintiffs amended the complaint to add allegations concerning UST’s definitive proxy statement and certain benefits payable to UST’s officers in connection with the transaction. The amended complaint also included aiding and abetting claims against UST. On December 17, 2008, the parties entered into a Memorandum of Understanding to settle this lawsuit and resolve all claims. The settlement amount was immaterial. The process for obtaining court approval is on-going.

-40-

Certain Other Actions

IRS Challenges to PMCC Leases: The IRS concluded its examination of ALG’sAltria Group, Inc.’s consolidated tax returns for the years 1996 through 1999, and issued a final Revenue Agent’s Report (“RAR”) onin March 15, 2006. The RAR disallowed benefits pertaining to certain PMCC leveraged lease transactions for the years 1996 through 1999. Altria Group, Inc. has agreed with all conclusions of the RAR, with the exception of the disallowance of benefits pertaining to several PMCC leveraged lease transactions for the years 1996 through 1999. PMCC will continue to assert its position regarding these leveraged lease transactions and contestAltria Group, Inc. contests approximately $150 million of tax and net interest assessed

-40-

and paid with regard to them. The IRS may in the future challenge and disallow more of PMCC’s leveraged leaseslease benefits based on recent Revenue Rulings, a recentan IRS Notice and subsequent case law addressing specific types of leveraged leases (lease-in/lease-out (“LILO”) and sale-in/lease-out (“SILO”) transactions). PMCC believes that the position and supporting case law described in the RAR, Revenue Rulings and the IRS Notice are incorrectly applied to PMCC’s transactions and that its leveraged leases are factually and legally distinguishable in material respects from the IRS’s position. PMCC and ALG intend to vigorously defend against any challenges based on that position through litigation. In this regard, on October 16, 2006, PMCCAltria Group, Inc. filed a complaint in the U.S.United States District Court for the Southern District of New York to claim refunds foron a portion of these tax payments and associated interest and intends to file complaints for the remainder. However, should PMCC’s positionyears 1996 and 1997. In March 2008, Altria Group, Inc. and the government filed simultaneous motions for summary judgment. Those motions are pending.

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 tax payments and associated interest for the years 1998 and 1999 attributable to the disallowance of benefits claimed in those years with respect to the leases included in the October 2006 filing and with respect to certain other leases entered into in 1998 and 1999.

Altria Group, Inc. considered this matter in its adoption of FASB Interpretation No. 48 and FASB Staff Position No. FAS 13-2. Should Altria Group, Inc. not be upheld, PMCCprevail in this litigation, however, Altria Group, Inc. may have to accelerate the payment of significant amounts of federal income tax and significantly lower its earnings to reflect the recalculation of the income from the affected leveraged leases, which could have a material effect on the earnings and cash flows of Altria Group, Inc. in a particular fiscal quarter or fiscal year. PMCC considered this matter in its adoption of FASB Interpretation No. 48Related litigation involving another party and FASB Staff Position No. FAS 13-2.

It is possible that there could be adverse developments in pending cases. An unfavorable outcome or settlement of pending tobacco related litigation could encourage the commencement of additional litigation. Although PM USA has historically been able to obtain required bonds or relief from bonding requirements in order to prevent plaintiffs from seeking to collect judgments while adverse verdicts have been appealed, there remains a risk that such relief may not be obtainable in all cases. This risksignificantly different LILO transaction has been substantially reduced given that 40 states now limitdecided in favor of the dollar amountIRS in a recent decision in the Fourth Circuit. Related litigation involving another party and a significantly different SILO transaction has been decided in favor of bonds or require no bond at all.the IRS in a recent decision in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio.

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

Environmental Regulation

Altria Group, Inc. and its subsidiaries record provisions(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 consolidated financial statements for pending litigation when they determine that an unfavorable outcome is probableUnited States: The Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act and the amountComprehensive

-41-

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 related to remediations 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. Although it is not possible to predict precise levels of environmental-related expenditures, compliance with such laws and regulations, including the loss can be reasonably estimated. Except as discussed elsewhere in this Item 3.Legal Proceedings: (i) managementpayment of any remediation costs and the making of such expenditures, has not concluded that ithad, and is probable thatnot expected to have, a loss has been incurred in any of the pending tobacco-related cases; (ii) management is unable to estimate the possible loss or range of loss that could result from an unfavorable outcome of any of the pending tobacco-related cases; and (iii) accordingly, management has not provided any amounts in the consolidated financial statements for unfavorable outcomes, if any.

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

Third-Party Guarantees

At December 31, 2006,2008, Altria Group, Inc.’s had a $12 million third-party guarantees, which are primarilyguarantee, related to excise taxes, and acquisition anda divestiture, activities, approximated $305 million, of which $286 million havewas recorded as a liability on its consolidated balance sheet. This guarantee has no specified expiration dates. The remainder expire through 2023, with $1 million expiring during 2007.date. Altria Group, Inc. is required to perform under these guaranteesthis guarantee in the event that a third

-41-

party fails to make contractual payments or achieve performance measures. Altria Group, Inc. has a liability of $38 million on its consolidated balance sheet at December 31, 2006, relating to these guarantees.payments. In the ordinary course of business, certain subsidiaries of ALGAltria Group, Inc. have agreed to indemnify a limited number of third parties in the event of future litigation.

Item 4.SubmissionUnder the terms of Mattersthe Distribution Agreement between Altria Group, Inc. and PMI, liabilities concerning tobacco products will be allocated based in substantial part on the manufacturer. PMI will indemnify Altria Group, Inc. and PM USA for liabilities related to tobacco products manufactured by PMI or contract manufactured for PMI by PM USA, and PM USA will indemnify PMI for liabilities related to tobacco products manufactured by PM USA, excluding tobacco products contract manufactured for PMI. Altria Group, Inc. does not have a Voterelated liability recorded on its consolidated balance sheet at December 31, 2008 as the fair value of Security Holders.this indemnification is insignificant.

None.

-42-

PART II

ALG’sAltria Group, Inc.’s share repurchase activity for each of the three months ended December 31, 2006, were2008, was as follows:

The principal stock exchange on which Altria Group, Inc.’s common stock (par value $0.33 ¹/ 1/3 per share) is listed is the New York Stock Exchange. At January 31, 2007,30, 2009, there were approximately 104,60097,000 holders of record of Altria Group, Inc.’s common stock.

The other information called for by this Item is hereby incorporated by reference to the paragraph captioned “Quarterly Financial Data (Unaudited)” on pages 8574 to 8675 of the 20062008 Annual Report and made a part hereof.

The information called for by this Item is hereby incorporated by reference to the information with respect to 2002-20062004-2008 appearing under the caption “Selected Financial Data”Data—Five Year Review” on page 4518 of the 20062008 Annual Report and made a part hereof.

-43-

The information called for by this Item is hereby incorporated by reference to the paragraphs captioned “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” (“MD&A”) on pages 1876 to 4498 of the 20062008 Annual Report and made a part hereof.

The information called for by this Item is hereby incorporated by reference to the paragraphs in the MD&A“Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” captioned “Market Risk” and “Value at Risk” on pages 4195 to 4296 of the 20062008 Annual Report and made a part hereof.

-43-

The information called for by this Item is hereby incorporated by reference to the 20062008 Annual Report as set forth under the caption “Quarterly Financial Data (Unaudited)” on pages 8574 to 8675 and in the Index to Consolidated Financial Statements and Schedules (see Item 15) and made a part hereof.

None.

Item 9A.Controls and Procedures.

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

Altria Group, Inc.’s management evaluated, with the participation of ALG’s Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, any change in Altria Group, Inc.’s internal control over financial reporting and determined that there has been no change in Altria Group, Inc.’s internal control over financial reporting during the quarter ended December 31, 2006 that has materially affected, or is reasonably likelySee pages 99 to materially affect, Altria Group, Inc.’s internal control over financial reporting. However, as noted within Item 4100 of Altria Group, Inc.’s quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2006, Kraft entered into a seven-year agreement in April 2006 to receive information technology services from Electronic Data Systems (“EDS”). Pursuant to this agreement, Kraft began to transition certain of its processes and procedures into the EDS control environment during the quarter ended September 30, 2006. As Kraft migrates to the EDS environment, its management ensures that key controls of Kraft are mapped to applicable EDS controls, tests transition controls prior to the migration date of those controls, and as appropriate, maintains and evaluates controls over the flow of information to and from EDS. Kraft expects this transition period to continue for three years. In addition, as also noted within Item 4 of Altria Group, Inc.’s quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2006, PMI has begun a process of centralizing the functions of transaction processing, purchasing and factory maintenance. As PMI migrates to this new environment, its management takes appropriate actions to ensure the continuity of key controls, and the transitions are reviewed as part of its testing of internal controls as they relate to the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation and fair presentation of Altria Group, Inc.’s consolidated financial statements.

See Exhibit 13 for the Report of Management on Internal Control over Financial Reporting and the Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm containing an attestation thereto.incorporated herein by reference.

Item 9B.Other Information.

None.

-44-

PART III

Except for the information relating to the executive officers set forth in Item 10 and the information relating to equity compensation plans set forth in Item 12, the information called for by Items 10-14 is hereby incorporated by reference to ALG’sAltria Group, Inc.’s definitive proxy statement for use in connection with its annual meeting of stockholders to be held on April 26, 2007May 19, 2009 that will be filed with the SEC on or about March 16, 2007April 9, 2009 (the “proxy statement”), and, except as indicated therein, made a part hereof.

Item 10.Directors, Executive Officers and Corporate Governance.

Executive Officers as of February 28, 2007:27, 2009:

With the exception of Dinyar S. Devitre and Irene B. Rosenfeld, allAll of the above-mentioned officers have been employed by Altria Group, Inc. or it subsidiaries in various capacities during the past five years. Dinyar S. Devitre was appointed Senior Vice Presidentyears, except for Messrs. Kessler and Chief Financial Officer effective April 25, 2002. From April 2001 to March 2002, he was a private business consultant. FromButler, who became executive officers upon the acquisition of UST on January 1998 to March 2001,6, 2009, and Mr. Devitre was Executive Vice President at CitigroupMcKessy, who joined Altria Group, Inc. in Europe. Prior to 1998, 2005 as Senior Assistant General Counsel and Assistant Corporate Secretary.

Mr. Devitre had beenButler was employed by ALG or its subsidiariesUST in various capacities since 1970. Irene B. RosenfeldSeptember of 2004 and served as President of USSTC since November 3, 2005. Previously, he was appointed Chief Executive Officeremployed at Kraft from 1987 to 2004 and held several executive positions of Kraft Foods Inc. effective June 26, 2006. From September 2004 to June 2006, Ms. Rosenfeldincreasing responsibility.

Mr. Kessler was Chairmanemployed by UST in various capacities during the past five years and served as President and Chief Executive Officer of Frito-Lay, a divisionUST since January 1, 2007.

Mr. McKessy previously worked as Securities Counsel for Caterpillar Inc. and as Senior Counsel for the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission Division of PepsiCo. Prior to joining Frito-LayEnforcement in 2004, Ms. Rosenfeld spent more than 20 years at Kraft, holding a number of key management positions, including President of Kraft’s North American business.Washington, D.C.

Codes of Conduct and Corporate Governance

ALGAltria Group, Inc. has adopted the Altria Code of Conduct for Compliance and Integrity, which complies with requirements set forth in Item 406 of Regulation S-K. This Code of Conduct applies to all of its employees, including its principal executive officer, principal financial officer, principal accounting officer or controller, and persons performing similar functions. ALGAltria Group, Inc. has also adopted a

-45-

code of business conduct and ethics that applies to the members of its Board of Directors. These documents are available free of charge on ALG’sAltria Group, Inc.’s website at www.altria.com and will be provided free of charge to any stockholder requesting a copy by writing to: Corporate Secretary, Altria Group, Inc., 120 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10017.6601 West Broad Street, Richmond, VA 23230.

In addition, ALGAltria Group, Inc. has adopted corporate governance guidelines and charters for its Audit, Compensation and Nominating, and Corporate Governance and Social Responsibility Committees and the other committees of the boardBoard of directors.Directors. All of these documents are available free of charge on ALG’sAltria Group, Inc.’s web site at www.altria.com are included in ALG’s definitive proxy statement, and will be provided free of charge to any stockholder requesting a copy by writing to: Corporate Secretary, Altria Group, Inc., 120 Park

-45-

Avenue, New York, NY 10017.6601 West Broad Street, Richmond, VA 23230. Any waiver granted by the CompanyAltria Group, Inc. to its principal executive officer, principal financial officer or controller under the code of ethics, or certain amendments to the code of ethics, will be disclosed on the Company’sAltria Group, Inc.’s website at www.altria.com.

On May 30, 2006, the CompanyJune 23, 2008, Altria Group, Inc. filed its Annual CEO Certification as required by Section 303A.12 of the New York Stock Exchange Listed Company Manual.

The information on ALG’s websitethe respective websites of Altria Group, Inc. and its subsidiaries is not, and shall not be deemed to be, a part of this Report or incorporated into any other filings madeAltria Group, Inc. makes with the SEC.