XML 45 R31.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT v2.4.0.6
Contingencies (Tables)
6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2012
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]  
Number Of Tobacco-Related Cases Pending Against Us And/Or 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 August 1, 2012, 2011 and 2010:
 
Type of Case
 
Number of
Cases Pending as of August 1, 2012
 
Number of
Cases Pending  as of
August 1, 2011
 
Number of
Cases Pending  as of
August 1, 2010
Individual Smoking and Health Cases
 
74

 
94

 
116

Smoking and Health Class Actions
 
10

 
10

 
11

Health Care Cost Recovery Actions
 
14

 
11

 
10

Lights Class Actions
 
2

 
2

 
2

Individual Lights Cases (small claims court)
 
7

 
9

 
10

Public Civil Actions
 
3

 
4

 
9

Verdicts And Post-Trial Developments
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 $15,360), 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 $6,370) 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 $49,000). Philip Morris Brasil filed an appeal in June 2011. This appeal is still pending.

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 $490) 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.