Contingencies:

Litigation - General

Legal proceedings covering a wide range of matters are pending or threatened against us, and/or our subsidiaries, and/or our indemnitees in various jurisdictions. Our indemnitees include distributors, licensees, and others that have been named as parties in certain cases and that we have agreed to defend, as well as pay costs and some or all of judgments, if any, that may be entered against them. Pursuant to the terms of the Distribution Agreement between Altria Group, Inc. ("Altria") and PMI, PMI will indemnify Altria and PM USA for tobacco product claims based in substantial part on products manufactured by PMI or contract manufactured for PMI by PM USA, and PM USA will indemnify PMI for tobacco product claims based in substantial part on products manufactured by PM USA, excluding tobacco products contract manufactured for PMI. Various types of claims are raised in these proceedings, including, among others, product liability, consumer protection, antitrust, employment and tax.

It is possible that there could be adverse developments in pending cases against us and our subsidiaries. An unfavorable outcome or settlement of pending tobacco-related litigation could encourage the commencement of additional litigation.

Damages claimed in some of the tobacco-related litigation are significant and, in certain cases in Brazil, Canada, Israel and Nigeria, range into 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. Much of the tobacco-related litigation is in its early stages and litigation is subject to uncertainty. However, as discussed below, we have to date been largely successful in defending tobacco-related litigation.

We and our subsidiaries record provisions in the consolidated financial statements for pending litigation when we 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, after assessing the information available to it (i) management has not concluded that it is probable that a loss has been incurred in any of the pending tobacco-related cases; (ii) management is unable to estimate the possible loss or range of loss for any of the pending tobacco-related cases; and (iii) accordingly, no estimated loss has been accrued in the consolidated financial statements for unfavorable outcomes in these cases, if any. Legal defense costs are expensed as incurred.

It is possible that our consolidated results of operations, cash flows or financial position could be materially affected in a particular fiscal quarter or fiscal year by an unfavorable outcome or settlement of certain pending litigation. Nevertheless, although litigation is subject to uncertainty, we and each of our subsidiaries named as a defendant believe, and each has been so advised by counsel handling the respective cases, that we have valid defenses to the litigation pending against us, as well as valid bases for appeal of adverse verdicts, if any. All such cases are, and will continue to be, vigorously defended. However, we and our subsidiaries may enter into settlement discussions in particular cases if we believe it is in our best interests to do so.

Tobacco-Related Litigation

To date, we have paid total judgments, including costs, of approximately six thousand Euros in tobacco-related cases. These payments were made in order to appeal three Italian small claims cases, two of which were subsequently reversed on appeal and one of which remains on appeal. To date, no tobacco-related case has been finally resolved in favor of a plaintiff against us, our subsidiaries or indemnitees.

The table below lists the number of tobacco-related cases pending against us and/or our subsidiaries or indemnitees as of May 1, 2012, 2011 and 2010:



Type of Case	Number of Cases Pending as of May 1, 2012	Number of Cases Pending as of May 1, 2011	Number of Cases Pending as of May 1, 2010
Individual Smoking and Health Cases	76	93	119
Smoking and Health Class Actions	10	11	9
Health Care Cost Recovery Actions	10	11	10
Lights Class Actions	2	2	3
Individual Lights Cases (small claims court)	9	10	12
Public Civil Actions	3	5	10

Since 1995, when the first tobacco-related litigation was filed against a PMI entity, 380 Smoking and Health, Lights, Health Care Cost Recovery, and Public Civil Actions in which we and/or one of our subsidiaries and/or indemnitees were a defendant have been terminated in our favor. Ten cases have had decisions in favor of plaintiffs. Six of these cases have subsequently reached final resolution in our favor and four remain on appeal.

The table below lists the verdicts and post-trial developments in the three pending cases (excluding an individual case on appeal from an Italian small claims court) in which verdicts were returned in favor of plaintiffs:



Date	Location of Court/Name of Plaintiff	Type of Case	Verdict	Post-Trial Developments
May 2011	Brazil/Laszlo	Individual Smoking and Health	The Civil Court of São Vicente found for plaintiff and ordered Philip Morris Brasil to pay damages of R$31,333 (approximately $17,800), plus future costs for cessation and medical treatment of smoking related diseases.	In June 2011, Philip Morris Brasil filed an appeal. In December 2011, the Appellate Court reversed the trial court decision. In February 2012, plaintiff appealed the decision.



Date	Location of Court/Name of Plaintiff	Type of Case	Verdict	Post-Trial Developments
September 2009	Brazil/Bernhardt	Individual Smoking and Health	The Civil Court of Rio de Janeiro found for plaintiff and ordered Philip Morris Brasil to pay R$13,000 (approximately $7,400) in “moral damages.”	Philip Morris Brasil filed its appeal against the decision on the merits with the Court of Appeals in November 2009. In February 2010, without addressing the merits, the Court of Appeals annulled the trial court’s decision and remanded the case to the trial court to issue a new ruling, which was required to address certain compensatory damage claims made by the plaintiff that the trial court did not address in its original ruling. In July 2010, the trial court reinstated its original decision, while specifically rejecting the compensatory damages claim. Philip Morris Brasil appealed this decision. In March 2011, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision and denied Philip Morris Brasil’s appeal. The Court of Appeals increased the amount of damages awarded to the plaintiff to R$100,000 (approximately $56,700). Philip Morris Brasil filed an appeal in June 2011.



Date	Location of Court/Name of Plaintiff	Type of Case	Verdict	Post-Trial Developments
February 2004	Brazil/The Smoker Health Defense Association (“ADESF”)	Class Action	The Civil Court of São Paulo found defendants liable without hearing evidence. The court did not assess moral or actual damages, which were to be assessed in a second phase of the case. The size of the class was not defined in the ruling.	In April 2004, the court clarified its ruling, awarding “moral damages” of R$1,000 (approximately $570) per smoker per full year of smoking plus interest at the rate of 1% per month, as of the date of the ruling. The court did not award actual damages, which were to be assessed in the second phase of the case. The size of the class was not estimated. Defendants appealed to the São Paulo Court of Appeals, which annulled the ruling in November 2008, finding that the trial court had inappropriately ruled without hearing evidence and returned the case to the trial court for further proceedings. In May 2011, the trial court dismissed the claim. Plaintiff has appealed. In addition, the defendants filed a constitutional appeal to the Federal Supreme Tribunal on the basis that the plaintiff did not have standing to bring the lawsuit. This appeal is still pending.

Pending claims related to tobacco products generally fall within the following categories:

Smoking and Health Litigation: These cases primarily allege personal injury and are brought by individual plaintiffs or on behalf of a class of individual plaintiffs. 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, violations of deceptive trade practice laws and consumer protection statutes. Plaintiffs in these cases seek various forms of relief, including compensatory and other damages, and injunctive and equitable relief. Defenses raised in these cases include licit activity, failure to state a claim, lack of defect, lack of proximate cause, assumption of the risk, contributory negligence, and statute of limitations.

As of May 1, 2012, there were a number of smoking and health cases pending against us, our subsidiaries or indemnitees, as follows:


•	76 cases brought by individual plaintiffs in Argentina (31), Brazil (31), Canada (2), Chile (2), Greece (1), Italy (5), the Philippines (1), Scotland (1), Thailand (1) and Turkey (1), compared with 93 such cases on May 1, 2011, and 119 cases on May 1, 2010; and


•	10 cases brought on behalf of classes of individual plaintiffs in Brazil (2) and Canada (8), compared with 11 such cases on May 1, 2011, and 9 such cases on May 1, 2010.

In the first class action pending in Brazil, The Smoker Health Defense Association (ADESF) v. Souza Cruz, S.A. and Philip Morris Marketing, S.A., Nineteenth Lower Civil Court of the Central Courts of the Judiciary District of São Paulo, Brazil, filed July 25, 1995, our subsidiary and another member of the industry are defendants. The plaintiff, a consumer organization, is seeking damages for smokers and former smokers and injunctive relief. The verdict and post-trial developments in this case are described in the above table.

In the second class action pending in Brazil, Public Prosecutor of São Paulo v. Philip Morris Brasil Industria e Comercio Ltda., Civil Court of the City of São Paulo, Brazil, filed August 6, 2007, our subsidiary is a defendant. The plaintiff, the Public Prosecutor of the State of São Paulo, is seeking (i) unspecified damages on behalf of all smokers nationwide, former smokers, and their relatives; (ii) unspecified damages on behalf of people exposed to environmental tobacco smoke (“ETS”) nationwide, and their relatives; and (iii) reimbursement of the health care costs allegedly incurred for the treatment of tobacco-related diseases by all Brazilian States and Municipalities, and the Federal District. In an interim ruling issued in December 2007, the trial court limited the scope of this claim to the State of São Paulo only. In December 2008, the Seventh Civil Court of São Paulo issued a decision declaring that it lacked jurisdiction because the case involved issues similar to the ADESF case discussed above and should be transferred to the Nineteenth Lower Civil Court in São Paulo where the ADESF case is pending. The court further stated that these cases should be consolidated for the purposes of judgment. Our subsidiary appealed this decision to the State of São Paulo Court of Appeals, which subsequently declared the case stayed pending the outcome of the appeal. In April 2010, the São Paulo Court of Appeals reversed the Seventh Civil Court’s decision that consolidated the cases, finding that they are based on different legal claims and are progressing at different stages of proceedings. This case was returned to the Seventh Civil Court of São Paulo, and our subsidiary filed its closing arguments in December 2010. In March 2012, the trial court dismissed the case on the merits. Plaintiff may appeal this decision.

In the first class action pending in Canada, Cecilia Letourneau v. Imperial Tobacco Ltd., Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc. and JTI Macdonald Corp., Quebec Superior Court, Canada, filed in September 1998, our subsidiary and other Canadian manufacturers are defendants. The plaintiff, an individual smoker, is seeking compensatory and unspecified punitive damages for each member of the class who is deemed addicted to smoking. The class was certified in 2005. On February 14, 2012, the court ruled that the federal government will remain as a third-party in the case. Trial began on March 12, 2012 and is expected to continue for a year or more.

In the second class action pending in Canada, Conseil Québécois Sur Le Tabac Et La Santé and Jean-Yves Blais v. Imperial Tobacco Ltd., Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc. and JTI Macdonald Corp., Quebec Superior Court, Canada, filed in November 1998, our subsidiary and other Canadian manufacturers are defendants. The plaintiffs, an anti-smoking organization and an individual smoker, are seeking compensatory and unspecified punitive damages for each member of the class who allegedly suffers from certain smoking-related diseases. The class was certified in 2005. On February 14, 2012, the court ruled that the federal government will remain as a third-party in the case. Trial began on March 12, 2012 and is expected to continue for a year or more.

In the third class action pending in Canada, Kunta v. Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers’ Council, et al., The Queen’s Bench, Winnipeg, Canada, filed June 12, 2009, we, our subsidiaries, and our indemnitees (PM USA and Altria Group, Inc.), and other members of the industry are defendants. The plaintiff, an individual smoker, alleges her own addiction to tobacco products and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (“COPD”), severe asthma, and mild reversible lung disease resulting from the use of tobacco products. She is seeking compensatory and unspecified punitive damages on behalf of a proposed class comprised of all smokers, their estates, dependents and family members, as well as restitution of profits, and reimbursement of government health care costs allegedly caused by tobacco products. In September 2009, plaintiff’s counsel informed defendants that he did not anticipate taking any action in this case while he pursues the class action filed in Saskatchewan (see description of Adams, below).

In the fourth class action pending in Canada, Adams v. Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers’ Council, et al., The Queen’s Bench, Saskatchewan, Canada, filed July 10, 2009, we, our subsidiaries, and our indemnitees (PM USA and Altria Group, Inc.), and other members of the industry are defendants. The plaintiff, an individual smoker, alleges her own addiction to tobacco products and COPD resulting from the use of tobacco products. She is seeking compensatory and unspecified punitive damages on behalf of a proposed class comprised of all smokers who have smoked a minimum of 25,000 cigarettes and have allegedly suffered, or suffer, from COPD, emphysema, heart disease, or cancer, as well as restitution of profits. Preliminary motions are pending.

In the fifth class action pending in Canada, Semple v. Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers’ Council, et al., The Supreme Court (trial court), Nova Scotia, Canada, filed June 18, 2009, we, our subsidiaries, and our indemnitees (PM USA and Altria Group, Inc.), and other members of the industry are defendants. The plaintiff, an individual smoker, alleges his own addiction to tobacco products and COPD resulting from the use of tobacco products. He is seeking compensatory and unspecified punitive damages on behalf of a proposed class comprised of all smokers, their estates, dependents and family members, as well as restitution of profits, and reimbursement of government health care costs allegedly caused by tobacco products. No activity in this case is anticipated while plaintiff’s counsel pursues the class action filed in Saskatchewan (see description of Adams, above).

In the sixth class action pending in Canada, Dorion v. Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers’ Council, et al., The Queen’s Bench, Alberta, Canada, filed June 15, 2009, we, our subsidiaries, and our indemnitees (PM USA and Altria Group, Inc.), and other members of the industry are defendants. The plaintiff, an individual smoker, alleges her own addiction to tobacco products and chronic bronchitis and severe sinus infections resulting from the use of tobacco products. She is seeking compensatory and unspecified punitive damages on behalf of a proposed class comprised of all smokers, their estates, dependents and family members, restitution of profits, and reimbursement of government health care costs allegedly caused by tobacco products. To date, we, our subsidiaries, and our indemnitees have not been properly served with the complaint. No activity in this case is anticipated while plaintiff’s counsel pursues the class action filed in Saskatchewan (see description of Adams, above).

In the seventh class action pending in Canada, McDermid v. Imperial Tobacco Canada Limited, et al., Supreme Court, British Columbia, Canada, filed June 25, 2010, we, our subsidiaries, and our indemnitees (PM USA and Altria Group, Inc.), and other members of the industry are defendants. The plaintiff, an individual smoker, alleges his own addiction to tobacco products and heart disease resulting from the use of tobacco products. He is seeking compensatory and unspecified punitive damages on behalf of a proposed class comprised of all smokers who were alive on June 12, 2007, and who suffered from heart disease allegedly caused by smoking, their estates, dependents and family members, plus disgorgement of revenues earned by the defendants from January 1, 1954 to the date the claim was filed. Defendants have filed jurisdictional challenges on the grounds that this action should not proceed during the pendency of the Saskatchewan class action (see description of Adams, above).

In the eighth class action pending in Canada, Bourassa v. Imperial Tobacco Canada Limited, et al., Supreme Court, British Columbia, Canada, filed June 25, 2010, we, our subsidiaries, and our indemnitees (PM USA and Altria Group, Inc.), and other members of the industry are defendants. The plaintiff, the heir to a deceased smoker, alleges that the decedent was addicted to tobacco products and suffered from emphysema resulting from the use of tobacco products. She is seeking compensatory and unspecified punitive damages on behalf of a proposed class comprised of all smokers who were alive on June 12, 2007, and who suffered from chronic respiratory diseases allegedly caused by smoking, their estates, dependents and family members, plus disgorgement of revenues earned by the defendants from January 1, 1954 to the date the claim was filed. Defendants have filed jurisdictional challenges on the grounds that this action should not proceed during the pendency of the Saskatchewan class action (see description of Adams, above).

Health Care Cost Recovery Litigation: These cases, brought by governmental and non-governmental plaintiffs, seek reimbursement of health care cost expenditures allegedly caused by tobacco products. Plaintiffs’ allegations of liability in these cases are based on various theories of recovery including unjust enrichment, negligence, negligent design, strict liability, breach of express and implied warranties, violation of a voluntary undertaking or special duty, fraud, negligent misrepresentation, conspiracy, public nuisance, defective product, failure to warn, sale of cigarettes to minors, and claims under statutes governing competition and deceptive trade practices. Plaintiffs in these cases seek various forms of relief including compensatory and other damages, and injunctive and equitable relief. Defenses raised in these cases include lack of proximate cause, remoteness of injury, failure to state a claim, adequate remedy at law, “unclean hands” (namely, that plaintiffs cannot obtain equitable relief because they participated in, and benefited from, the sale of cigarettes), and statute of limitations.

As of May 1, 2012, there were 10 health care cost recovery cases pending against us, our subsidiaries or indemnitees in Canada (4), Nigeria (5) and Spain (1), compared with 11 such cases on May 1, 2011 and 10 such cases on May 1, 2010.

In the first health care cost recovery case pending in Canada, 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, we, our subsidiaries, our indemnitee (PM USA), and other members of the industry are defendants. The plaintiff, the government of the province of British Columbia, brought a claim based upon legislation enacted by the province authorizing the government to file a direct action against cigarette manufacturers to recover the health care costs it has incurred, and will incur, resulting from a “tobacco related wrong.” The Supreme Court of Canada has held that the statute is constitutional. We and certain other non-Canadian defendants challenged the jurisdiction of the court. The court rejected the jurisdictional challenge, and pre-trial discovery is ongoing. The trial court also has granted plaintiff’s request that the target trial date of September 2011 be postponed indefinitely. Meanwhile, in December 2009, the British Columbia Court of Appeal ruled that the defendants could pursue a third-party claim against the government of Canada for negligently misrepresenting to defendants the efficacy of the low tar tobacco strain that the federal government developed and licensed to some of the defendants. In May 2010, the Supreme Court of Canada agreed to hear both the appeal of the Attorney General of Canada and the defendants’ cross-appeal from the British Columbia Court of Appeal decision. In July 2011, the Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the third-party claims against the federal government.

In the second health care cost recovery case filed in Canada, Her Majesty the Queen in Right of New Brunswick v. Rothmans Inc., et al., Court of Queen’s Bench of New Brunswick, Trial Court, New Brunswick, Fredericton, Canada, filed March 13, 2008, we, our subsidiaries, our indemnitees (PM USA and Altria Group, Inc.), and other members of the industry are defendants. The claim was filed by the government of the province of New Brunswick based on legislation enacted in the province. This legislation is similar to the law introduced in British Columbia that authorizes the government to file a direct action against cigarette manufacturers to recover the health care costs it has incurred, and will incur, as a result of a “tobacco related wrong.” Pre-trial discovery is ongoing.

In the third health care cost recovery case filed in Canada, Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario v. Rothmans Inc., et al., Ontario Superior Court of Justice, Toronto, Canada, filed September 29, 2009, we, our subsidiaries, our indemnitees (PM USA and Altria Group, Inc.), and other members of the industry are defendants. The claim was filed by the government of the province of Ontario based on legislation enacted in the province. This legislation is similar to the laws introduced in British Columbia and New Brunswick that authorize the government to file a direct action against cigarette manufacturers to recover the health care costs it has incurred, and will incur, as a result of a “tobacco related wrong.” Preliminary motions are pending.

In the fourth health care cost recovery case filed in Canada, Attorney General of Newfoundland and Labrador v. Rothmans Inc., et al., Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador, St. Johns, Canada, filed February 8, 2011, we, our subsidiaries, our indemnitees (PM USA and Altria Group, Inc.), and other members of the industry are defendants. The claim was filed by the government of the province of Newfoundland and Labrador based on legislation enacted in the province that is similar to the laws introduced in British Columbia, New Brunswick and Ontario. The legislation authorizes the government to file a direct action against cigarette manufacturers to recover the health care costs it has incurred, and will incur, as a result of a “tobacco related wrong.” Preliminary motions are pending.

In the first case in Nigeria, The Attorney General of Lagos State v. British American Tobacco (Nigeria) Limited, et al., High Court of Lagos State, Lagos, Nigeria, filed April 30, 2007, our subsidiary and other members of the industry are defendants. Plaintiff seeks reimbursement for the cost of treating alleged smoking-related diseases for the past 20 years, payment of anticipated costs of treating alleged smoking-related diseases for the next 20 years, various forms of injunctive relief, plus punitive damages. In February 2008, our subsidiary was served with a Notice of Discontinuance. The claim was formally dismissed in March 2008. However, the plaintiff has since refiled its claim. Our subsidiary is in the process of making challenges to service and the court’s jurisdiction. Currently, the case is stayed in the trial court pending the appeals of certain co-defendants relating to service objections. We currently have no employees, operations or assets in Nigeria.

In the second case in Nigeria, The Attorney General of Kano State v. British American Tobacco (Nigeria) Limited, et al., High Court of Kano State, Kano, Nigeria, filed May 9, 2007, our subsidiary and other members of the industry are defendants. Plaintiff seeks reimbursement for the cost of treating alleged smoking-related diseases for the past 20 years, payment of anticipated costs of treating alleged smoking-related diseases for the next 20 years, various forms of injunctive relief, plus punitive damages. Our subsidiary is in the process of making challenges to service and the court’s jurisdiction.

In the third case in Nigeria, The Attorney General of Gombe State v. British American Tobacco (Nigeria) Limited, et al., High Court of Gombe State, Gombe, Nigeria, filed May 18, 2007, our subsidiary and other members of the industry are defendants. Plaintiff seeks reimbursement for the cost of treating alleged smoking-related diseases for the past 20 years, payment of anticipated costs of treating alleged smoking-related diseases for the next 20 years, various forms of injunctive relief, plus punitive damages. In July 2008, the court dismissed the case against all defendants based on the plaintiff’s failure to comply with various procedural requirements when filing and serving the complaint. The plaintiff did not appeal the dismissal. However, in October 2008, the plaintiff refiled its claim. In June 2010, the court ordered the plaintiff to amend the claim to properly name Philip Morris International Inc. as a defendant. Philip Morris International Inc. objected to plaintiff’s attempted service of amended process. In February 2011, the court granted, in part, our service objections, ruling that the plaintiff had not complied with the procedural steps necessary to serve us. As a result of this ruling, Philip Morris International Inc. is not currently a defendant in the case. Plaintiff may appeal the ruling or follow the procedural steps required to serve Philip Morris International Inc.

In the fourth case in Nigeria, The Attorney General of Oyo State, et al., v. British American Tobacco (Nigeria) Limited, et al., High Court of Oyo State, Ibadan, Nigeria, filed May 25, 2007, our subsidiary and other members of the industry are defendants. Plaintiffs seek reimbursement for the cost of treating alleged smoking-related diseases for the past 20 years, payment of anticipated costs of treating alleged smoking-related diseases for the next 20 years, various forms of injunctive relief, plus punitive damages. Our subsidiary challenged service as improper. In June 2010, the court ruled that plaintiffs did not have leave to serve the writ of summons on the defendants and that they must re-serve the writ. Our subsidiary has not yet been re-served.

In the fifth case in Nigeria, The Attorney General of Ogun State v. British American Tobacco (Nigeria) Limited, et al., High Court of Ogun State, Abeokuta, Nigeria, filed February 26, 2008, our subsidiary and other members of the industry are defendants. Plaintiff seeks reimbursement for the cost of treating alleged smoking-related diseases for the past 20 years, payment of anticipated costs of treating alleged smoking-related diseases for the next 20 years, various forms of injunctive relief, plus punitive damages. In May 2010, the trial court rejected our subsidiary’s service objections. Our subsidiary has appealed.

In a series of proceedings in Spain, Junta de Andalucia, et al. v. Philip Morris Spain, et al., Court of First Instance, Madrid, Spain, the first of which was filed February 21, 2002, our subsidiary and other members of the industry were defendants. The plaintiffs sought reimbursement for the cost of treating certain of their citizens for various alleged smoking-related illnesses. In May 2004, the first instance court dismissed the initial case, finding that the State was a necessary party to the claim, and thus, the claim must be filed in the Administrative Court. The plaintiffs appealed. In February 2006, the appellate court affirmed the lower court’s dismissal. The plaintiffs then filed notice that they intended to pursue their claim in the Administrative Court against the State. Because they were defendants in the original proceeding, our subsidiary and other members of the industry filed notices with the Administrative Court that they are interested parties in the case. In September 2007, the plaintiffs filed their complaint in the Administrative Court. In November 2007, the Administrative Court dismissed the claim based on a procedural issue. The plaintiffs asked the Administrative Court to reconsider its decision dismissing the case, and that request was rejected in a ruling rendered in February 2008. Plaintiffs appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court rejected plaintiffs’ appeal in November 2009, resulting in the final dismissal of the claim. However, plaintiffs have filed a second claim in the Administrative Court against the Ministry of Economy. This second claim seeks the same relief as the original claim, but relies on a different procedural posture. The Administrative Court has recognized our subsidiary as a party in this proceeding. Our subsidiary and other defendants filed preliminary objections that resulted in a stay of the term to file the answer. In May 2011, the court rejected the defendants’ preliminary objections, but it has not yet set a deadline for defendants to file their answers.

Lights Cases: These cases, brought by individual plaintiffs, or on behalf of a class of individual plaintiffs, allege that the use of the term “lights” constitutes fraudulent and misleading conduct. Plaintiffs’ allegations of liability in these cases are based on various theories of recovery including misrepresentation, deception, and breach of consumer protection laws. Plaintiffs seek various forms of relief including restitution, injunctive relief, and compensatory and other damages. Defenses raised include lack of causation, lack of reliance, assumption of the risk, and statute of limitations.

As of May 1, 2012, there were a number of lights cases pending against our subsidiaries or indemnitees, as follows:


•	2 cases brought on behalf of overlapping classes of individual plaintiffs in Israel, compared with 2 such cases on May 1, 2011 and 3 such cases on May 1, 2010; and


•	9 cases brought by individuals in the equivalent of small claims courts in Italy, where the maximum damages are approximately one thousand Euros per case, compared with 10 such cases on May 1, 2011, and 12 such cases on May 1, 2010.

In the first class action pending in Israel, El-Roy, et al. v. Philip Morris Incorporated, et al., District Court of Tel-Aviv/Jaffa, Israel, filed January 18, 2004, our subsidiary and our indemnitees (PM USA and our former importer) are defendants. The plaintiffs filed a purported class action claiming that the class members were misled by the descriptor “lights” into believing that lights cigarettes are safer than full flavor cigarettes. The claim seeks recovery of the purchase price of lights cigarettes and compensation for distress for each class member. Hearings took place in November and December 2008 regarding whether the case meets the legal requirements necessary to allow it to proceed as a class action. The parties’ briefing on class certification was completed in March 2011. A hearing for final oral argument on class certification took place in November 2011. We are awaiting the court's decision.

The claims in a second class action pending in Israel, Navon, et al. v. Philip Morris Products USA, et al., District Court of Tel-Aviv/Jaffa, Israel, filed December 5, 2004, against our indemnitee (our distributor) and other members of the industry are similar to those in El-Roy, and the case is currently stayed pending a ruling on class certification in El-Roy.

Public Civil Actions: Claims have been filed either by an individual, or a public or private entity, seeking to protect collective or individual rights, such as the right to health, the right to information or the right to safety. Plaintiffs’ allegations of liability in these cases are based on various theories of recovery including product defect, concealment, and misrepresentation. Plaintiffs in these cases seek various forms of relief including injunctive relief such as banning cigarettes, descriptors, smoking in certain places and advertising, as well as implementing communication campaigns and reimbursement of medical expenses incurred by public or private institutions.

As of May 1, 2012, there were 3 public civil actions pending against our subsidiaries in Argentina (1), Brazil (1), and Venezuela (1), compared with 5 such cases on May 1, 2011, and 10 such cases on May 1, 2010.

In the public civil action in Argentina, Asociación Argentina de Derecho de Danos v. Massalin Particulares S.A., et al., Civil Court of Buenos Aires, Argentina, filed February 26, 2007, our subsidiary and another member of the industry are defendants. The plaintiff, a consumer association, seeks the establishment of a relief fund for reimbursement of medical costs associated with diseases allegedly caused by smoking. Our subsidiary filed its answer in September 2007. In March 2010, the case file was transferred to the Federal Court on Administrative Matters after the Civil Court granted the plaintiff’s request to add the national government as a co-plaintiff in the case.

In the public civil action in Brazil, The Brazilian Association for the Defense of Consumer Health (“SAUDECON”) v. Philip Morris Brasil Industria e Comercio Ltda. and Souza Cruz S.A., Civil Court of City of Porto Alegre, Brazil, filed November 3, 2008, our subsidiary is a defendant. The plaintiff, a consumer organization, is asking the court to establish a fund that will be used to provide treatment to smokers who claim to be addicted and who do not otherwise have access to smoking cessation treatment. Plaintiff requests that each defendant’s liability be determined according to its market share. In May 2009, the trial court dismissed the case on the merits. Plaintiff has appealed.

In the public civil action in Venezuela, Federation of Consumers and Users Associations (“FEVACU”), et al. v. National Assembly of Venezuela and the Venezuelan Ministry of Health, Constitutional Chamber of the Venezuelan Supreme Court, filed April 29, 2008, we were not named as a defendant, but the plaintiffs published a notice pursuant to court order, notifying all interested parties to appear in the case. In January 2009, our subsidiary appeared in the case in response to this notice. The plaintiffs purport to represent the right to health of the citizens of Venezuela and claim that the government failed to protect adequately its citizens’ right to health. The claim asks the court to order the government to enact stricter regulations on the manufacture and sale of tobacco products. In addition, the plaintiffs ask the court to order companies involved in the tobacco industry to allocate a percentage of their “sales or benefits” to establish a fund to pay for the health care costs of treating smoking-related diseases. In October 2008, the court ruled that plaintiffs have standing to file the claim and that the claim meets the threshold admissibility requirements.

Other Litigation

Other litigation includes an antitrust suit, a breach of contract action, various tax and individual employment cases and tort claims.

Antitrust: In the antitrust class action in Kansas, Smith v. Philip Morris Companies Inc., et al., District Court of Seward County, Kansas, filed February 7, 2000, we and other members of the industry are defendants. The plaintiff asserts that the defendant cigarette companies engaged in an international conspiracy to fix wholesale prices of cigarettes and sought certification of a class comprised of all persons in Kansas who were indirect purchasers of cigarettes from the defendants. The plaintiff claims unspecified economic damages resulting from the alleged price-fixing, trebling of those damages under the Kansas price-fixing statute and counsel fees. The trial court granted plaintiff’s motion for class certification in 2001. On March 23, 2012, the trial court granted defendants' motions for summary judgment in their entirety and, accordingly, entered judgment for the defendants on all claims. On April 23, 2012, plaintiffs filed their objections to the trial court's finding of facts and conclusions of law. Plaintiffs' time to appeal is extended until after the trial court rules on these objections.

Breach of Contract: In the breach of contract action in Ontario, Canada, The Ontario Flue-Cured Tobacco Growers’ Marketing Board, et al. v. Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc., Superior Court of Justice, London, Ontario, Canada, filed November 5, 2009, our subsidiary is a defendant. Plaintiffs in this putative class action allege that our subsidiary breached contracts with the proposed class members (Ontario tobacco growers and their related associations) concerning the sale and purchase of flue-cured tobacco from January 1, 1986 to December 31, 1996. Plaintiffs allege that our subsidiary was required by the contracts to disclose to plaintiffs the quantity of tobacco included in cigarettes to be sold for duty free and export purposes (which it purchased at a lower price per pound than tobacco that was included in cigarettes to be sold in Canada), but failed to disclose that some of the cigarettes it designated as being for export and duty free purposes were ultimately sold in Canada. Our subsidiary has been served, but there is currently no deadline to respond to the statement of claim. In September 2011, plaintiffs served a notice of motion seeking class certification.

Tax: In Brazil, there are 113 tax cases involving Philip Morris Brasil S.A. and Philip Morris Brasil Ltda. relating to the payment of state tax on the sale and transfer of goods and services, federal social contributions, excise, social security and income tax, and other matters. Fifty-seven of these cases are under administrative review by the relevant fiscal authorities and 56 are under judicial review by the courts.

Employment: Our subsidiaries, Philip Morris Brasil S.A. and Philip Morris Brasil Ltda., are defendants in various individual employment cases resulting, among other things, from the termination of employment in connection with the shut-down of one of our factories in Brazil.

Tort: In the first action in Delaware, Antonio Emilio Hupan et al. v. Alliance One International, Inc. et al. Superior Court for the State of Delaware in and for New Castle County, filed February 14, 2012, we, our subsidiaries, other members of the industry, certain companies allegedly involved in the purchase of tobacco leaf in Argentina, and certain companies allegedly involved in the manufacture of herbicides are defendants. Plaintiffs in this action are eight children born between the years of 1996 and 2008 and their families, all residing in Argentina. Plaintiffs claim that the children developed birth defects as a result of the exposure of their parents to herbicides while working on farms in Argentina. Plaintiffs allege that we, our subsidiaries, other members of the industry, and certain companies allegedly involved in the purchase of tobacco leaf in Argentina required the use of certain herbicides in tobacco growing while failing to warn tobacco growers of the risks. Plaintiffs claim unspecified compensatory and punitive damages. One of our subsidiaries was served with the complaint on March 21, 2012 and we were served on March 22, 2012.

In the second action in Delaware, Pabla Chalañuk et al. v. Alliance One International, Inc. et al. Superior Court for the State of Delaware in and for New Castle County, filed April 5, 2012, we, our subsidiaries, other members of the industry, certain companies allegedly involved in the purchase of tobacco leaf in Argentina, and certain companies allegedly involved in the manufacture of herbicides are defendants. Plaintiffs in this action are 41 children born between the years of 1986 and 2009 and their families, all residing in Argentina. Plaintiffs claim that the children developed birth defects as a result of the exposure of their parents to herbicides while working on farms in Argentina. Plaintiffs allege that we, our subsidiaries, other members of the industry, and certain companies allegedly involved in the purchase of tobacco leaf in Argentina required the use of certain herbicides in tobacco growing while failing to warn tobacco growers of the risks. Plaintiffs claim unspecified compensatory and punitive damages. One of our subsidiaries was served with the complaint on May 2, 2012.