Exhibit 99.1
CERTAIN PENDING LITIGATION MATTERS AND RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
As described in Note 9.Contingencies of this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q, there are legal proceedings covering a wide range of matters pending in various U.S. and foreign jurisdictions against ALG, its subsidiaries and affiliates, including PM USA and PMI, and their respective indemnitees. Various types of claims are raised in these proceedings, including product liability, consumer protection, antitrust, tax, contraband shipments, patent infringement, employment matters, claims for contribution and claims of competitors and distributors. Pending claims related to tobacco products generally fall within the following categories: (i) smoking and health cases alleging personal injury brought on behalf of individual plaintiffs, (ii) smoking and health cases alleging personal injury and purporting to be brought on behalf of a class of individual plaintiffs, including cases in which the aggregated claims of a number of individual plaintiffs are to be tried in a single proceeding, (iii) health care cost recovery cases brought by governmental (both domestic and foreign) and non-governmental plaintiffs seeking reimbursement for health care expenditures allegedly caused by cigarette smoking and/or disgorgement of profits, and (iv) other tobacco-related litigation. Other tobacco-related litigation includes class action suits alleging that the use of the terms “Lights” and “Ultra Lights” constitutes deceptive and unfair trade practices, suits by foreign governments seeking to recover damages resulting from the allegedly illegal importation of cigarettes into various jurisdictions, suits by former asbestos manufacturers seeking contribution or reimbursement for amounts expended in connection with the defense and payment of asbestos claims that were allegedly caused in whole or in part by cigarette smoking, and various antitrust suits.
The following lists certain of the pending claims included in these categories and certain other pending claims. Certain developments in these cases since August 6, 2004 are also described.
SMOKING AND HEALTH LITIGATION
The following lists the consolidated individual smoking and health cases as well as smoking and health class actions pending against PM USA and, in some cases, ALG and/or its other subsidiaries and affiliates, including PMI, as of November 1, 2004, and describes certain developments in these cases since August 6, 2004.
Consolidated Individual Smoking and Health Cases
In re: Tobacco Litigation (Individual Personal Injury cases), Circuit Court, Ohio County, West Virginia, consolidated January 11, 2000. In West Virginia, all smoking and health cases in state court alleging personal injury have been transferred to the State’s Mass Litigation Panel. The transferred cases include individual cases and putative class actions. All individual cases filed in or transferred to the court by September 13, 2000 were consolidated for pretrial proceedings and trial. Nine hundred and sixty-five (965) individual cases are pending. The trial court’s prior Case Management Order/Trial Plan that had consolidated the individual cases for trial was vacated in June 2004. The trial court has not adopted an alternative plan for trying the individual cases. The court has certified a question of law relating to the trial plan to the West Virginia Supreme Court.
Flight Attendant Litigation
The settlement agreement entered into in 1997 in the case ofBroin, et al. v. Philip Morris Companies Inc., et al., which was brought by flight attendants seeking damages for personal injuries allegedly caused by environmental tobacco smoke, allows members of theBroin class to file individual lawsuits seeking compensatory damages, but prohibits them from seeking punitive damages. In October 2000, the trial court ruled that the flight attendants will not be required to prove the substantive liability elements of their claims for negligence, strict liability and breach of implied warranty in order to recover damages, if any, other than establishing that the plaintiffs’ alleged injuries were caused by their exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and, if so, the amount of compensatory damages to be awarded.
-1-
Exhibit 99.1
Defendants’ initial appeal of this ruling was dismissed as premature. Defendants are appealing the October 2000 rulings in connection with their appeal of the adverse jury verdict in theFrench case. As of November 1, 2004, 2,682 cases were pending in the Circuit Court of Dade County, Florida against PM USA and three other cigarette manufacturers, and to date, one such case is scheduled for trial through the end of 2005.
Domestic Class Actions
Engle, et al. v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., et al., Circuit Court, Eleventh Judicial Circuit, Dade County, Florida, filed May 5, 1994.See Note 9. Contingencies, for a discussion of this case.
Scott, et al. v. The American Tobacco Company, et al., Civil District Court, Orleans Parish, Louisiana, filed May 24, 1996.SeeNote 9. Contingencies, for a discussion of this case.
Young, et al. v. The American Tobacco Company, et al., Civil District Court, Orleans Parish, Louisiana, filed November 12, 1997.
Parsons, et al. v. A C & S, Inc., et al., Circuit Court, Kanawha County, West Virginia, filed February 27, 1998.
Cleary, et al. v. Philip Morris Incorporated, et al., Circuit Court, Cook County, Illinois, filed June 3, 1998.
Cypret (formerly Jones), et al. v. The American Tobacco Company, et al., Circuit Court, Jackson County, Missouri, filed December 22, 1998.
Simms, et al. v. Philip Morris Incorporated, et al., United States District Court, District of Columbia, filed May 23, 2001. In May 2004, plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration of the court’s 2003 ruling that denied their motion for class certification. In September 2004, plaintiffs renewed their motion for reconsideration.
Lowe, et al. v. Philip Morris Incorporated, et al., Circuit Court, Multomah, Oregon, filed November 19, 2001. In September 2003, the court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint, and plaintiffs have appealed.
International Class Actions
The Smoker Health Defense Association (ADESF) v. Souza Cruz, S.A. and Philip Morris Marketing, S.A., Nineteenth Lower Civil Court of the Central Courts of the Judiciary District of Sao Paulo, Brazil, filed July 25, 1995. In February 2004, the trial court issued an order finding that the action was valid under the Brazilian Consumer Defense Code. The order contemplates a second stage of the case in which individuals are to file their claims, and defendants have filed a motion seeking clarification of the order. In April 2004, the trial court denied defendants’ motions for clarification and granted plaintiff’s motion for clarification, setting the amount for moral damages awarded in any second phase of the case at the equivalent of approximately $350 per smoker per year of smoking. Defendants have appealed. The trial court has granted defendants’ motion to stay its decision while the appeal is pending.
Fortin, et al. v. Imperial Tobacco Ltd., et al., Quebec Superior Court, Canada, filed on or about September 11, 1998. Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification is pending. The case has been consolidated withConseil Quebecois sur le Tabac v. RJR-Macdonald Inc., et al., discussed below.
Conseil Quebecois sur le Tabac v. RJR-Macdonald Inc., et al., Quebec Superior Court, Canada, filed November 20, 1998. Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification is pending. The case has been consolidated withFortin, et al. v. Imperial Tobacco, Ltd., et al., discussed above.
-2-
Exhibit 99.1
HEALTH CARE COST RECOVERY LITIGATION
The following lists the health care cost recovery actions pending against PM USA and, in some cases, ALG and/or its other subsidiaries and affiliates as of November 1, 2004 and describes certain developments in these cases since August 6, 2004. As discussed in Note 9.Contingencies, in 1998 PM USA and certain other United States tobacco product manufacturers entered into a Master Settlement Agreement (the “MSA”) settling the health care cost recovery claims of 46 states, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam, the United States Virgin Islands, American Samoa and the Northern Marianas. Settlement agreements settling similar claims had previously been entered into with the states of Mississippi, Florida, Texas and Minnesota. PM USA believes that the claims in the city/county, taxpayer and certain of the other health care cost recovery actions listed below are released in whole or in part by the MSA or that recovery in any such actions should be subject to the offset provisions of the MSA.
City/County Cases
County of Cook v. Philip Morris Incorporated, et al., Circuit Court, Cook County, Illinois, filed April 18, 1997. Defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings was granted by the trial court, and plaintiff appealed. In September 2004, the Appellate Court of Illinois affirmed the trial court’s ruling.
City of St. Louis, et al. v. American Tobacco, et al., Circuit Court, City of St. Louis, Missouri, filed November 23, 1998. In November 2001, the court granted in part and denied in part defendants’ motion to dismiss and dismissed three of plaintiffs’ 11 claims. Trial is scheduled for June 2005.
County of McHenry, et al. v. Philip Morris Incorporated, et al., Circuit Court, Cook County, Illinois, filed July 13, 2000. The case has been stayed pending the outcome of the appeal inCounty of Cook v. Philip Morris Incorporated, et al.,discussed above.
Department of Justice Case
The United States of America v. Philip Morris Incorporated, et al., United States District Court, District of Columbia, filed September 22, 1999. See Note 9.Contingencies, for a discussion of this case.
International Cases
The Republic of Panama v. The American Tobacco Company, Inc., United States District Court, District of Columbia, filed September 11, 1998. In July 2000, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit vacated the ruling by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana that granted plaintiff’s motion to remand the case to the Civil District Court, Orleans Parish, Louisiana. In November 2000, the case was transferred to the Multidistrict Litigation Proceeding pending before the United States District Court for the District of Columbia (seeIn re: Tobacco/Government Health Care Cost Litigation (MDL No. 1279) (the “MDL Proceeding,” discussed below)). Plaintiff’s motion to remand this case is pending before the court hearing the MDL Proceeding.
Kupat Holim Clalit v. Philip Morris USA, et al., Jerusalem District Court, Israel, filed September 28, 1998. Defendants’ motion to dismiss the case has been denied by the district court. In June 2004, defendants filed a motion with the Israel Supreme Court for leave to appeal the district court’s decision.
The Republic of Bolivia v. Philip Morris Companies Inc., et al., United States District Court, District of Columbia, filed January 20, 1999. In February 1999, this case was removed to federal court by defendants and subsequently transferred on the court’s own motion to the federal district court for the District of Columbia in March 1999. It is currently pending in the MDL Proceeding discussed below.
-3-
Exhibit 99.1
The Caisse Primaire d’Assurance Maladie of Saint-Nazaire v. SEITA, et al., Civil Court of Saint-Nazaire, France, filed June 1999. In September 2003, the court dismissed the case, and plaintiff has appealed.
In re: Tobacco/Governmental Health Care Costs Litigation (MDL No. 1279), United States District Court, District of Columbia, consolidated June 1999. In June 1999, the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transferred foreign government health care cost recovery actions brought by Nicaragua, Venezuela, and Thailand to the District of Columbia for coordinated pretrial proceedings with two such actions brought by Bolivia and Guatemala already pending in that court. Subsequently, the resulting proceeding has also included filed cases brought by the following foreign governments: Ukraine; the Brazilian States of Espirito Santo, Goias, Mato Grosso do Sul, Para, Parana, Pernambuco, Piaui, Rondonia, Sao Paulo and Tocantins; Panama; the Province of Ontario, Canada; Ecuador; the Russian Federation; Honduras; Tajikistan; Belize; the Kyrgyz Republic and 11 Brazilian cities. The cases brought by Thailand and the Kyrgyz Republic were voluntarily dismissed. The complaints filed by Guatemala, Nicaragua, Ukraine and the Province of Ontario have been dismissed, and the dismissals are now final. The district court remanded the cases brought by Belize, Ecuador, Honduras, the Russian Federation, Tajikistan, Venezuela, nine Brazilian states listed and the 11 Brazilian cities to Florida state courts and remanded the case brought by one Brazilian state to Louisiana state court. Subsequent to remand, the Ecuador case was voluntarily dismissed. In November 2001, the Venezuela and Espirito Santo actions were dismissed, and Venezuela appealed. In September 2002, a Florida intermediate appellate court affirmed the ruling dismissing the case brought by Venezuela. In June 2003, the Florida Supreme Court denied Venezuela’s petition for further review. In August 2003, the trial court granted defendants’ motions to dismiss the cases brought by Tajikistan and one Brazilian state, and plaintiffs in the other 21 cases then pending in Florida voluntarily dismissed their claims without prejudice.
The State of Rio de Janeiro of the Federal Republic of Brazil v. Philip Morris Companies Inc., et al., District Court, Angelina County, Texas, filed July 12, 1999. In December 2002, the court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the case, and plaintiff appealed. In August 2004, the appellate court affirmed the trial court’s order dismissing the case. Plaintiff has indicated its intent to appeal to the Texas Supreme Court.
The State of Sao Paulo of the Federal Republic of Brazil v. Philip Morris Companies Inc., et al., Civil District Court, Orleans Parish, Louisiana, filed February 9, 2000.
Her Majesty the Queen in Right of British Columbia v. Imperial Tobacco Limited, et al., Supreme Court, British Columbia, Vancouver Registry, Canada, filed January 24, 2001. In June 2003, the court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the case, and plaintiff appealed. In May 2004, the appellate court reversed the trial court’s decision.
Junta de Andalucia, et al. v. Philip Morris Spain, et al., Court of First Instance, Madrid, Spain, filed February 21, 2002. In May 2004, the court dismissed the case, and plaintiffs have appealed.
Insurer and Self – Insurer Cases
Blue Cross and Blue Shield of New Jersey, Inc., et al. v. Philip Morris Incorporated, et al., United States District Court, Eastern District, New York, filed April 29, 1998. In September 2000, the court severed the claims of one plaintiff, Empire Blue Cross and Blue Shield (“Empire”), from those of the other plaintiffs. Trial of Empire’s claims commenced March 2001, and in June 2001, the jury returned a verdict in favor of Empire on two of its claims and awarded Empire up to approximately $17.8 million in compensatory damages, including $6.8 million against PM USA, and no punitive damages. In July 2001, the court stayed the remaining Blue Cross plans’ cases pending the outcome of Empire’s appeal, and denied plaintiff’s motion to treble the damage award. In October 2001, the court denied defendants’ post-trial motions challenging the verdict and, in November 2001, entered judgment. Defendants, including PM USA, appealed. In February 2002, the court awarded plaintiff approximately $38 million for attorneys’ fees. In September 2003, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed the portion of the judgment relating to subrogation, certified questions relating to plaintiff’s direct claims of deceptive business practices to the New York Court of Appeals and
-4-
Exhibit 99.1
deferred its ruling on the appeal of the attorneys’ fees award pending the ruling on the certified questions. In October 2004, the New York Court of Appeals ruled in defendants’ favor on the certified questions and found that plaintiff’s direct claims are barred on grounds of remoteness. The parties are awaiting the ruling of the Second Circuit.
Taxpayer Cases
Temple, et al. v. The State of Tennessee, et al., United States District Court, Middle District, Tennessee, filed September 11, 2000. Plaintiffs’ complaint seeks class certification of those individuals who are Medicaid/TennCare recipients and who have allegedly suffered from smoking-related injuries. Plaintiffs claim that the putative class is entitled to a portion of the MSA funds under Tennessee’s “made whole” doctrine. Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction seeking to enjoin the State of Tennessee from receiving the MSA payments and asking that the MSA proceeds be paid into the court was denied in March 2002. In July 2002, the court granted the State’s motion to dismiss on the grounds of sovereign immunity. In December 2002, the trial court granted the remaining defendants’ motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, and plaintiffs appealed. In October 2004, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed the dismissal order. This case has been consolidated withAnderson, et al., v. The American Tobacco Company, Inc., et al., discussed below, for appeal. PM USA and several other appellees filed a motion to dismiss the appeal based on appellants’ failure to file a timely notice of appeal, and the motion was denied.
Anderson, et al. v. The American Tobacco Company, Inc., et al., United States District Court, Middle District, Tennessee, filed May 23, 1997. In August 2002, an order was entered that consolidated this case withTemple, et al. v. The State of Tennessee, et al. (“Temple”), discussed above and granted plaintiffs’ motion to amend the complaint to make the allegations in this case similar to those inTemple. In November 2002, the trial court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, and plaintiffs appealed. In October 2004, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed the dismissal order. SeeTemple, et al., v. The State of Tennessee, et al., discussed above.
Glover, et al. v. Philip Morris Incorporated, et al., United States District Court, Middle District, Florida, filed May 26, 2004.
CERTAIN OTHER TOBACCO-RELATED ACTIONS
The following lists certain other tobacco-related litigation pending against ALG and/or its various subsidiaries and others as of November 1, 2004, and describes certain developments since August 6, 2004.
Lights/Ultra Lights Cases
Aspinall, et al. v. Philip Morris Companies Inc. and Philip Morris Incorporated, Superior Court, Suffolk County, Massachusetts, filed November 24, 1998. In October 2001, the court granted plaintiffs’ motion for class certification, and defendants appealed. In May 2003, the Single Justice sitting on behalf of the Massachusetts Court of Appeals decertified the class. In August 2004, Massachusetts’ highest court affirmed the trial court’s ruling and reinstated the class certification order.
McClure, et al. v. Philip Morris Companies Inc. and Philip Morris Incorporated, Circuit Court, Davidson County, Tennessee, filed January 19, 1999.
Marrone, et al. v. Philip Morris Companies Inc. and Philip Morris Incorporated, Court of Common Pleas, Medina County, Ohio, filed November 8, 1999. In September 2003, plaintiffs’ motion for class certification was granted as to plaintiffs’ claims that defendants violated Ohio’s Consumer Sales Practices Act pursuant to which plaintiffs allege that class members are entitled to reimbursement of the costs of cigarettes purchased during the class periods. Class membership is limited to the residents of six Ohio counties. Defendants have appealed the class certification order. In September 2004, the Ninth District Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s class certification order. PM USA has petitioned the Court of Appeals for reconsideration or certification to the Ohio Supreme Court.
-5-
Exhibit 99.1
Price, et al. v. Philip Morris Incorporated, Circuit Court, Madison County, Illinois, filed February 10, 2000. See Note 9.Contingencies, for a discussion of this case.
Craft (formerly, Ratliff), et al. v. Philip Morris Companies Inc., et al., Circuit Court, City of St. Louis, Missouri, filed February 15, 2000. In December 2003, the court granted plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. In September 2004, the court granted in part and denied in part PM USA’s motion for reconsideration. In October 2004, the Missouri Court of Appeals agreed to review the class certification decision.
Hines, et al. v. Philip Morris Companies Inc., et al., Circuit Court, Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County, Florida, filed February 23, 2001. In February 2002, the court granted plaintiffs’ motion for class certification, and defendants appealed. In December 2003, a Florida District Court of Appeal decertified the class. In March 2004, plaintiffs filed a motion for rehearing,en banc review or certification to the Florida Supreme Court. In October 2004, the Court of Appeal denied plaintiffs’ motion.
Philipps, et al. v. Philip Morris Incorporated, et al., Court of the Common Pleas, Medina County, Ohio, filed April 30, 2001. In September 2003, plaintiffs’ motion for class certification was granted as to plaintiffs’ claims that defendants violated Ohio’s Consumer Sales Practices Act pursuant to which plaintiffs allege that class members are entitled to reimbursement of the costs of cigarettes purchased during the class periods. Class membership is limited to the residents of six Ohio counties. Defendants have appealed the class certification order. In September 2004, the Ninth District Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s class certification order. PM USA has petitioned the Court of Appeals for reconsideration or certification to the Ohio Supreme Court.
Moore, et al. v. Philip Morris Incorporated, et al., Circuit Court, Marshall County, West Virginia, filed September 17, 2001.
Curtis, et al. v. Philip Morris Companies Inc., et al., Fourth Judicial District Court, Hennepin County, Minnesota, filed November 28, 2001. In January 2004, the court denied plaintiffs’ motion for class certification and defendants’ motions for summary judgment. In March 2004, an intermediate court of appeals declined plaintiffs’ application for an interlocutory appeal. Plaintiffs have been permitted to seek reconsideration with the trial court.
Tremblay, et al. v. Philip Morris Incorporated, Superior Court, Rockingham County, New Hampshire, filed March 29, 2002. The case has been consolidated withPeters v. Philip Morris Incorporated.
Peters v. Philip Morris Incorporated, Superior Court, Rockingham County, New Hampshire, filed April 22, 2002. This case has been consolidated withTremblay, et al. v. Philip Morris Incorporated.
Pearson v. Philip Morris Incorporated, et al., Circuit Court, Multnomah County, Oregon, filed November 20, 2002.
Sullivan v. Philip Morris USA, Inc., et al., Circuit Court, Western District, Louisiana, filed March 28, 2003.
Virden v. Altria Group, Inc., et al., Circuit Court, Hancock County, West Virginia, filed March 28, 2003.
Stern, et al. v. Philip Morris USA, Inc. et al., Superior Court, Middlesex County, New Jersey, filed April 4, 2003.
Piscetta, et al. v. Philip Morris Incorporated, State Court, Fulton County, Georgia, filed April 10, 2003.
Arnold, et al. v. Philip Morris USA Inc., Circuit Court, Madison County, Illinois, filed May 5, 2003.
-6-
Exhibit 99.1
Watson, et al. v. Altria Group, Inc., et al., United States District Court, Eastern District, Arkansas, filed May 29, 2003.
Paldrmic, et al. v. Altria Group, Inc., et al., Circuit Court, Milwaukee County, Wisconsin, filed June 5, 2003. In September 2004, plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the case without prejudice.
Holmes, et al. v. Philip Morris USA Inc., et al., Superior Court, New Castle, Delaware, filed August 18, 2003.
El Roy v. Philip Morris Incorporated, et al., Tel Aviv-Jaffa District Court, Israel, filed January 18, 2004.
Davies v. Philip Morris USA Inc., et al., Superior Court, King County, Washington, filed April 8, 2004.
McLaughlin, et al. v. Philip Morris USA Inc., et al., United States District Court, Eastern District, New York, filed May 11, 2004.
Tobacco Price Cases
Smith, et al. v. Philip Morris Companies Inc., et al., District Court, Seward County, Kansas, filed February 9, 2000. In November 2001, the court granted plaintiffs’ motion for class certification.
Romero, et al. v. Philip Morris Companies Inc., et al., First Judicial District Court, Rio Arriba County, New Mexico, filed April 10, 2000. Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification was granted in April 2003. The New Mexico Court of Appeals has agreed to hear defendants’ appeal of the class certification decision.
Wholesale Leaders Cases
Smith Wholesale Company, Inc., et al. v. Philip Morris USA Inc., United States District Court, Eastern District, Tennessee, filed July 10, 2003. See Note 9.Contingencies, for a discussion of this case.
Victory Brand, L.L.C., Michigan v. Philip Morris USA Inc., et al., United States District Court, Eastern District, Michigan, filed December 10, 2003. See Note 9.Contingencies, for a discussion of this case.
Consolidated Putative Punitive Damages Cases
Simon, et al. v. Philip Morris Incorporated, et al. (Simon II), United States District Court, Eastern District, New York, filed September 6, 2000. See Note 9.Contingencies, for a discussion of this case.
Cases Under the California Business and Professions Code
Brown, et al. v. The American Tobacco Company, Inc., et al., Superior Court, San Diego County, California, filed June 10, 1997. In April 2001, the court granted in part plaintiffs’ motion for class certification and certified a class comprised of residents of California who smoked at least one of defendants’ cigarettes between June 1993 and April 2001 and who were exposed to defendants’ marketing and advertising activities in California. Certification was granted as to plaintiffs’ claims that defendants violated California Business and Professions Code Sections 17200 and 17500 pursuant to which plaintiffs allege that class members are entitled to reimbursement of the costs of cigarettes purchased during the class period and injunctive relief barring activities allegedly in violation of the Business and Professions Code. In September 2004, the court granted in part and denied in part defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Trial is scheduled for March 2005.
Daniels, et al. v. Philip Morris Companies Inc., et al., Superior Court, San Diego County, California, filed April 2, 1998. In November 2000, the court granted the plaintiffs’ motion for class certification on behalf of minor California residents who smoked at least one cigarette between April 1994 and December 1999.
-7-
Exhibit 99.1
Certification was granted as to plaintiffs’ claims that defendants violated California Business and Professions Code Section 17200 pursuant to which plaintiffs allege that class members are entitled to reimbursements of the costs of cigarettes purchased during the class period and injunctive relief barring activities allegedly in violation of the Business and Professions Code. In September 2002, the court granted defendants’ motions for summary judgment as to all claims in the case, and plaintiffs appealed. In October 2004, the California Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s ruling. The appellate court has denied plaintiffs’ motion for rehearing.
Gurevitch, et al. v. Philip Morris USA Inc., et al., Superior Court, Los Angeles County, California, filed May 20, 2004. See Note 9.Contingencies, for a discussion of this case.
Asbestos Contribution Cases
Fibreboard Corporation, et al. v. The American Tobacco Company, Inc., et al., Superior Court, Alameda County, California, filed December 11, 1997.
Combustion Engineering, Inc., et al. v. RJR Nabisco, Inc., et al., Circuit Court, Jefferson County, Mississippi, filed December 18, 2000 (not yet served). In August 2004, the court entered a final judgment dismissing with prejudice the contribution claims of plaintiff, Combustion Engineering.
W.R. Grace & Co. Conn., et al. v. RJR Nabisco, Inc., et al., Circuit Court, Jefferson County, Mississippi, filed April 24, 2001.
Cigarette Contraband Cases
Department of Amazonas, et al. v. Philip Morris Companies Inc., et al., United States District Court, Eastern District, New York, filed May 19, 2000. Defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim was granted by the trial court and plaintiffs appealed. In January 2004, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the trial court’s ruling. In April 2004, plaintiffs petitioned the United States Supreme Court for further review.
The European Community, et al. v. RJR Nabisco, Inc., et al., United States District Court, Eastern District, New York, filed August 6, 2001. Defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim was granted by the trial court, and plaintiffs appealed. In January 2004, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the trial court’s ruling. In April 2004, plaintiffs petitioned the United States Supreme Court for further review. In July 2004, plaintiffs moved to withdraw their petition following the agreement entered into among PMI, the European Commission and 10 member states.
Vending Machine Case
Lewis d/b/a B&H Vendors v. Philip Morris Incorporated, United States District Court, Middle District, Tennessee, filed February 3, 1999. See Note 9.Contingencies, for a discussion of this case.
MSA-Related Cases
In the following cases, plaintiffs have challenged the validity of the MSA described in Note 9. Contingencies or legislation implementing the MSA.
Freedom Holdings, Inc., et al. v. Spitzer, et al., United States District Court, Southern District, New York, filed April 16, 2002.
Sanders, et al. v. Philip Morris USA, Inc., et al., United States District Court, Northern District, California, filed June 9, 2004. PM USA’s motion to dismiss the case is pending.
-8-
Exhibit 99.1
Tritent International Corp. v. Commonwealth of Kentucky, United States District Court, Eastern District, Kentucky, filed September 23, 2004.
CERTAIN OTHER ACTIONS
The following lists certain other actions pending against subsidiaries of ALG and others as of November 1, 2004.
In May 2001, the Attorney General for the State of Ohio notified Kraft Foods Global, Inc. that it may be subject to an enforcement action for alleged past violations of Kraft Foods Global, Inc.’s wastewater discharge permit at its production facility in Farmdale, Ohio. The State and Kraft Foods Global, Inc. have reached a proposed settlement of the matter, which presently is in a public notice and comment period before being presented to the State of Ohio Court of Common Pleas for Trumbull County. The proposed settlement amount is not material to Altria Group, Inc.
In October 2002, Mr. Mustapha Gaouar and five family members (collectively, the “Gaouars”) filed suit in the Commercial Court of Casablanca against Kraft Foods Maroc (“KFM”), a subsidiary of Kraft, and Mr. Omar Berrada claiming damages of approximately $31 million arising from a non-compete undertaking signed by Mr. Gaouar allegedly under duress. In June 2003, the court issued a preliminary judgment against KFM and Mr. Berrada holding that Mr. Gaouar is entitled to damages for being deprived of the possibility of engaging in coffee roasting from 1986 due to such non-compete undertaking. At that time, the court appointed two experts to assess the amount of damages to be awarded. In December 2003, these experts delivered a report concluding that they could see no evidence of loss suffered by the Gaouars. The Gaouars asked the court that this report be set aside and new court experts be appointed. On April 15, 2004, the court delivered a judgment upholding the defenses of KFM and rejecting the claims of the Gaouars. The Gaouars appealed this judgment. KFM believes that in the event that it is ultimately found liable for damages to plaintiffs in this case, it may have claims against Mr. Berrada for recovery of all or a portion of the amount of any damages awarded to plaintiffs.
-9-
