Contingencies:

Tobacco-Related Litigation

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 to 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 Philip Morris USA Inc. ("PM USA"), a U.S. tobacco subsidiary of Altria, 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.

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 and Nigeria, range into the billions of U.S. 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. 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.

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 October 23, 2017, October 21, 2016 and October 27, 2015:



Type of Case	Number of Cases Pending as of October 23, 2017	Number of Cases Pending as of October 21, 2016	Number of Cases Pending as of October 27, 2015
Individual Smoking and Health Cases	65	67	69
Smoking and Health Class Actions	11	11	11
Health Care Cost Recovery Actions	16	16	16
Label-Related Class Actions	1	—	—
Individual Label-Related Cases	1	3	3
Public Civil Actions	2	2	2

Since 1995, when the first tobacco-related litigation was filed against a PMI entity, 465 Smoking and Health, Label-Related, 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. Thirteen cases have had decisions in favor of plaintiffs. Nine of these cases have subsequently reached final resolution in our favor and four remain on appeal.

The table below lists the verdict and significant post-trial developments in the four pending cases where a verdict was returned in favor of the plaintiff:



Date	Location of Court/Name of Plaintiff	Type of Case	Verdict	Post-Trial Developments
February 2004	Brazil/The Smoker Health Defense Association	Class Action	The Civil Court of São Paulo found defendants liable without hearing evidence. In April 2004, the court awarded “moral damages” of R$1,000 (approximately $312) 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 assess 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.	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 appealed the decision. In February 2015, the appellate court unanimously dismissed plaintiff's appeal. In September 2015, plaintiff appealed to the Superior Court of Justice. In addition, the defendants filed a constitutional appeal to the Federal Supreme Tribunal on the basis that plaintiff did not have standing to bring the lawsuit. This appeal is still pending.



Date	Location of Court/Name of Plaintiff	Type of Case	Verdict	Post-Trial Developments
May 27, 2015	Canada/Cecilia Létourneau	Class Action	On May 27, 2015, the Superior Court of the District of Montreal, Province of Quebec ruled in favor of the Létourneau class on liability and awarded a total of CAD 131 million (approximately $104 million) in punitive damages, allocating CAD 46 million (approximately $36 million) to our subsidiary. The trial court ordered defendants to pay the full punitive damage award into a trust within 60 days. The court did not order the payment of compensatory damages.	In June 2015, our subsidiary commenced the appellate process with the Court of Appeal of Quebec. Our subsidiary also filed a motion to cancel the trial court’s order for payment into a trust notwithstanding appeal. In July 2015, the Court of Appeal granted the motion to cancel and overturned the trial court’s ruling that our subsidiary make the payment into a trust. In August 2015, plaintiffs filed a motion for security with the Court of Appeal covering both the Létourneau case and the Blais case described below. In October 2015, the Court of Appeal granted the motion and ordered our subsidiary to furnish security totaling CAD 226 million (approximately $179 million) to cover both the Létourneau and Blais cases. The hearing for the merits appeal took place in November 2016. (See below for further detail.)



Date	Location of Court/Name of Plaintiff	Type of Case	Verdict	Post-Trial Developments
May 27, 2015	Canada/Conseil Québécois Sur Le Tabac Et La Santé and Jean-Yves Blais	Class Action	On May 27, 2015, the Superior Court of the District of Montreal, Province of Quebec ruled in favor of the Blais class on liability and found the class members’ compensatory damages totaled approximately CAD 15.5 billion (approximately $12.3 billion), including pre-judgment interest. The trial court awarded compensatory damages on a joint and several liability basis, allocating 20% to our subsidiary (approximately CAD 3.1 billion including pre-judgment interest (approximately $2.45 billion)). The trial court awarded CAD 90,000 (approximately $71,200) in punitive damages, allocating CAD 30,000 (approximately $23,700) to our subsidiary. The trial court ordered defendants to pay CAD 1 billion (approximately $791 million) of the compensatory damage award, CAD 200 million (approximately $158 million) of which is our subsidiary’s portion, into a trust within 60 days.	In June 2015, our subsidiary commenced the appellate process with the Court of Appeal of Quebec. Our subsidiary also filed a motion to cancel the trial court’s order for payment into a trust notwithstanding appeal. In July 2015, the Court of Appeal granted the motion to cancel and overturned the trial court’s ruling that our subsidiary make the payment into a trust. In August 2015, plaintiffs filed a motion for security with the Court of Appeal. In October 2015, the Court of Appeal granted the motion and ordered our subsidiary to furnish security totaling, together with the Létourneau case, CAD 226 million (approximately $179 million). The hearing for the merits appeal took place in November 2016. (See below for further detail.)



Date	Location of Court/Name of Plaintiff	Type of Case	Verdict	Post-Trial Developments
August 5, 2016	Argentina/Hugo Lespada	Individual Action	On August 5, 2016, the Civil Court No. 14 - Mar del Plata, issued a verdict in favor of plaintiff, an individual smoker, and awarded him ARS 110,000 (approximately $6,312), plus interest, in compensatory and moral damages. The Court found that our subsidiary failed to warn plaintiff of the risk of becoming addicted to cigarettes.	On August 23, 2016, our subsidiary filed its notice of appeal.

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 or purported 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 October 23, 2017, there were a number of smoking and health cases pending against us, our subsidiaries or indemnitees, as follows:


•	65 cases brought by individual plaintiffs in Argentina (32), Brazil (14), Canada (4), Chile (7), Costa Rica (1), Italy (3), the Philippines (1), Russia (1), Turkey (1) and Scotland (1), compared with 67 such cases on October 21, 2016, and 69 cases on October 27, 2015; and


•	11 cases brought on behalf of classes of individual plaintiffs in Brazil (2) and Canada (9), compared with 11 such cases on October 21, 2016 and 11 such cases on October 27, 2015.

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 all addicted smokers and former smokers, and injunctive relief. In 2004, the trial court found defendants liable without hearing evidence and awarded “moral damages” of R$1,000 (approximately $312) 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. In February 2015, the appellate court unanimously dismissed plaintiff's appeal. In September 2015, plaintiff appealed to the Superior Court of Justice. In February 2017, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Justice denied plaintiff's appeal. In March 2017, plaintiff filed an en banc appeal to the Supreme Court of Justice. In addition, the defendants previously filed a constitutional appeal to the Federal Supreme Tribunal on the basis that plaintiff did not have standing to bring the lawsuit. Both appeals are still pending.

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) damages on behalf of all smokers nationwide, former smokers, and their relatives; (ii) damages on behalf of people exposed to environmental tobacco smoke 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. 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. In January 2014, the São Paulo Court of Appeals rejected plaintiff’s appeal and affirmed the trial court decision. In July 2014, plaintiff appealed to the Superior Court of Justice.

In the first class action pending in Canada, Cecilia Létourneau 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 (Imperial Tobacco Canada Ltd. and JTI-MacDonald Corp.) are defendants. The plaintiff, an individual smoker, sought compensatory and punitive damages for each member of the class who is deemed addicted to smoking. The class was certified in 2005. Trial began in March 2012 and concluded in December 2014. The trial court issued its judgment on May 27, 2015. The trial court found our subsidiary and two other Canadian manufacturers liable and awarded a total of CAD 131 million (approximately $104 million) in punitive damages, allocating CAD 46 million (approximately $36 million) to our subsidiary. The trial court found that defendants violated the Civil Code of Quebec, the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms, and the Quebec Consumer Protection Act by failing to warn adequately of the dangers of smoking. The trial court also found that defendants conspired to prevent consumers from learning the dangers of smoking. The trial court further held that these civil faults were a cause of the class members’ addiction. The trial court rejected other grounds of fault advanced by the class, holding that: (i) the evidence was insufficient to show that defendants marketed to youth, (ii) defendants’ advertising did not convey false information about the characteristics of cigarettes, and (iii) defendants did not commit a fault by using the descriptors light or mild for cigarettes with a lower tar delivery. The trial court estimated the size of the addiction class at 918,000 members but declined to award compensatory damages to the addiction class because the evidence did not establish the claims with sufficient accuracy. The trial court ordered defendants to pay the full punitive damage award into a trust within 60 days and found that a claims process to allocate the awarded damages to individual class members would be too expensive and difficult to administer. The trial court ordered a briefing on the proposed process for the distribution of sums remaining from the punitive damage award after payment of attorneys’ fees and legal costs. In June 2015, our subsidiary commenced the appellate process by filing its inscription of appeal of the trial court’s judgment with the Court of Appeal of Quebec. Our subsidiary also filed a motion to cancel the trial court’s order for payment into a trust within 60 days notwithstanding appeal. In July 2015, the Court of Appeal granted the motion to cancel and overturned the trial court’s ruling that our subsidiary make the payment into a trust within 60 days. In August 2015, plaintiffs filed a motion with the Court of Appeal seeking security in both the Létourneau case and the Blais case described below. In October 2015, the Court of Appeal granted the motion and ordered our subsidiary to furnish security totaling CAD 226 million (approximately $179 million), in the form of cash into a court trust or letters of credit, in six equal consecutive quarterly installments of approximately CAD 37.6 million (approximately $29.8 million) beginning in December 2015 through March 2017. See the Blais description for further detail concerning the security order. The Court of Appeal heard oral arguments on the merits appeal in November 2016. Our subsidiary and PMI believe that the findings of liability and damages were incorrect and should ultimately be set aside on any one of many grounds, including the following: (i) holding that defendants violated Quebec law by failing to warn class members of the risks of smoking even after the court found that class members knew, or should have known, of the risks, (ii) finding that plaintiffs were not required to prove that defendants’ alleged misconduct caused injury to each class member in direct contravention of binding precedent, (iii) creating a factual presumption, without any evidence from class members or otherwise, that defendants’ alleged misconduct caused all smoking by all class members, (iv) holding that the addiction class members’ claims for punitive damages were not time-barred even though the case was filed more than three years after a prominent addiction warning appeared on all packages, and (v) awarding punitive damages to punish defendants without proper consideration as to whether punitive damages were necessary to deter future misconduct.

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 (Imperial Tobacco Canada Ltd. and JTI-MacDonald Corp.) are defendants. The plaintiffs, an anti-smoking organization and an individual smoker, sought compensatory and punitive damages for each member of the class who allegedly suffers from certain smoking-related diseases. The class was certified in 2005. Trial began in March 2012 and concluded in December 2014. The trial court issued its judgment on May 27, 2015. The trial court found our subsidiary and two other Canadian manufacturers liable and found that the class members’ compensatory damages totaled approximately CAD 15.5 billion, including pre-judgment interest (approximately $12.3 billion). The trial court awarded compensatory damages on a joint and several liability basis, allocating 20% to our subsidiary (approximately CAD 3.1 billion, including pre-judgment interest (approximately $2.45 billion)). In addition, the trial court awarded CAD 90,000 (approximately $71,200) in punitive damages, allocating CAD 30,000 (approximately $23,700) to our subsidiary and found that defendants violated the Civil Code of Quebec, the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms, and the Quebec Consumer Protection Act by failing to warn adequately of the dangers of smoking. The trial court also found that defendants conspired to prevent consumers from learning the dangers of smoking. The trial court further held that these civil faults were a cause of the class members’ diseases. The trial court rejected other grounds of fault advanced by the class, holding that: (i) the evidence was insufficient to show that defendants marketed to youth, (ii) defendants’ advertising did not convey false information about the characteristics of cigarettes, and (iii) defendants did not commit a fault by using the descriptors light or mild for cigarettes with a lower tar delivery. The trial court estimated the disease class at 99,957 members. The trial court ordered defendants to pay CAD 1 billion (approximately $791 million) of the compensatory damage award into a trust within 60 days, CAD 200 million (approximately $158 million) of which is our subsidiary’s portion and ordered briefing on a proposed claims process for the distribution of damages to individual class members and for payment of attorneys’ fees and legal costs. In June 2015, our subsidiary commenced the appellate process by filing its inscription of appeal of the trial court’s judgment with the Court of Appeal of Quebec. Our subsidiary also filed a motion to cancel the trial court’s order for payment into a trust within 60 days notwithstanding appeal. In July 2015, the Court of Appeal granted the motion to cancel and overturned the trial court’s ruling that our subsidiary make an initial payment within 60 days. In August 2015, plaintiffs filed a motion with the Court of Appeal seeking an order that defendants place irrevocable letters of credit totaling CAD 5 billion (approximately $3.96 billion) into trust, to secure the judgments in both the Létourneau and Blais cases. Plaintiffs subsequently withdrew their motion for security against JTI-MacDonald Corp. and proceeded only against our subsidiary and Imperial Tobacco Canada Ltd. In October 2015, the Court of Appeal granted the motion and ordered our subsidiary to furnish security totaling CAD 226 million (approximately $179 million) to cover both the Létourneau and Blais cases. Such security may take the form of cash into a court trust or letters of credit, in six equal consecutive quarterly installments of approximately CAD 37.6 million (approximately $29.8 million) beginning in December 2015 through March 2017. The Court of Appeal ordered Imperial Tobacco Canada Ltd. to furnish security totaling CAD 758 million (approximately $600 million) in seven equal consecutive quarterly installments of approximately CAD 108 million (approximately $85.5 million) beginning in December 2015 through June 2017. In March 2017, our subsidiary made its sixth and final quarterly installment of security for approximately CAD 37.6 million (approximately $29.8 million) into a court trust. This payment is included in other assets on the condensed consolidated balance sheets and in cash used in operating activities in the condensed consolidated statements of cash flows. The Court of Appeal ordered that the security is payable upon a final judgment of the Court of Appeal affirming the trial court’s judgment or upon further order of the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal heard oral arguments on the merits appeal in November 2016. Our subsidiary and PMI believe that the findings of liability and damages were incorrect and should ultimately be set aside on any one of many grounds, including the following: (i) holding that defendants violated Quebec law by failing to warn class members of the risks of smoking even after the court found that class members knew, or should have known, of the risks, (ii) finding that plaintiffs were not required to prove that defendants’ alleged misconduct caused injury to each class member in direct contravention of binding precedent, (iii) creating a factual presumption, without any evidence from class members or otherwise, that defendants’ alleged misconduct caused all smoking by all class members, (iv) relying on epidemiological evidence that did not meet recognized scientific standards, and (v) awarding punitive damages to punish defendants without proper consideration as to whether punitive damages were necessary to deter future misconduct.

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), 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 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), 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 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), 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 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), 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 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), 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 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.

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), 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 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. In December 2014, plaintiff filed an amended statement of claim.

In the ninth class action pending in Canada, Suzanne Jacklin v. Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers' Council, et al., Ontario Superior Court of Justice, filed June 20, 2012, we, our subsidiaries, and our indemnitees (PM USA and Altria), 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 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, heart disease, or cancer, as well as restitution of profits. Plaintiff's counsel has indicated that he does not intend to take any action in this case in the near future.

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 October 23, 2017, there were 16 health care cost recovery cases pending against us, our subsidiaries or indemnitees in Canada (10), Korea (1) and Nigeria (5), compared with 16 such cases on October 21, 2016 and 16 such cases on October 27, 2015.

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. Pre-trial discovery is ongoing.

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), 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 June 2017, the trial court set a trial date for November 4, 2019.

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), 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.” Pre-trial discovery is ongoing.

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), 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.” Pre-trial discovery is ongoing.

In the fifth health care cost recovery case filed in Canada, Attorney General of Quebec v. Imperial Tobacco Limited, et al., Superior Court of Quebec, Canada, filed June 8, 2012, we, our subsidiary, our indemnitee (PM USA), and other members of the industry are defendants. The claim was filed by the government of the province of Quebec based on legislation enacted in the province that is similar to the laws enacted in several other Canadian provinces. 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.” Pre-trial discovery is ongoing.

In the sixth health care cost recovery case filed in Canada, Her Majesty in Right of Alberta v. Altria Group, Inc., et al., Supreme Court of Queen's Bench Alberta, Canada, filed June 8, 2012, we, our subsidiaries, our indemnitees (PM USA and Altria), and other members of the industry are defendants. The claim was filed by the government of the province of Alberta based on legislation enacted in the province that is similar to the laws enacted in several other Canadian provinces. 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.” Pre-trial discovery is ongoing.

In the seventh health care cost recovery case filed in Canada, Her Majesty the Queen in Right of the Province of Manitoba v. Rothmans, Benson & Hedges, Inc., et al., The Queen's Bench, Winnipeg Judicial Centre, Canada, filed May 31, 2012, we, our subsidiaries, our indemnitees (PM USA and Altria), and other members of the industry are defendants. The claim was filed by the government of the province of Manitoba based on legislation enacted in the province that is similar to the laws enacted in several other Canadian provinces. 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.” Defendants filed their defenses in September 2014. Pre-trial discovery is ongoing.

In the eighth health care cost recovery case filed in Canada, The Government of Saskatchewan v. Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc., et al., Queen's Bench, Judicial Centre of Saskatchewan, Canada, filed June 8, 2012, we, our subsidiaries, our indemnitees (PM USA and Altria), and other members of the industry are defendants. The claim was filed by the government of the province of Saskatchewan based on legislation enacted in the province that is similar to the laws enacted in several other Canadian provinces. 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.” Defendants filed their defenses in February 2015. Discovery is scheduled to begin in 2017.

In the ninth health care cost recovery case filed in Canada, Her Majesty the Queen in Right of the Province of Prince Edward Island v. Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc., et al., Supreme Court of Prince Edward Island (General Section), Canada, filed September 10, 2012, we, our subsidiaries, our indemnitees (PM USA and Altria), and other members of the industry are defendants. The claim was filed by the government of the province of Prince Edward Island based on legislation enacted in the province that is similar to the laws enacted in several other Canadian provinces. 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.” Defendants filed their defenses in February 2015. Discovery is scheduled to begin in 2017.

In the tenth health care cost recovery case filed in Canada, Her Majesty the Queen in Right of the Province of Nova Scotia v. Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc., et al., Supreme Court of Nova Scotia, Canada, filed January 2, 2015, we, our subsidiaries, our indemnitees (PM USA and Altria), and other members of the industry are defendants. The claim was filed by the government of the province of Nova Scotia based on legislation enacted in the province that is similar to the laws enacted in several other Canadian provinces. 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.” Defendants filed their defenses in July 2015. Discovery is scheduled to begin in 2017.

In the first health care cost recovery 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 March 13, 2008, we 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. We are 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.

In the second health care cost recovery 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, we 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. We are 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.

In the third health care cost recovery 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 October 17, 2008, we 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 2011, the court ruled that the plaintiff had not complied with the procedural steps necessary to serve us. As a result of this ruling, plaintiff must re-serve its claim. We have not yet been re-served.

In the fourth health care cost recovery 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, we 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. We 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. We have not yet been re-served.

In the fifth health care cost recovery 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, we 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 service objections. We have appealed.

In the health care cost recovery case in Korea, the National Health Insurance Service v. KT&G, et. al., filed April 14, 2014, our subsidiary and other Korean manufacturers are defendants. Plaintiff alleges that defendants concealed the health hazards of smoking, marketed to youth, added ingredients to make their products more harmful and addictive, and misled consumers into believing that Lights cigarettes are safer than regular cigarettes. The National Health Insurance Service seeks to recover approximately $53.7 million allegedly incurred in treating 3,484 patients with small cell lung cancer, squamous cell lung cancer, and squamous cell laryngeal cancer from 2003 to 2012. The case is now in the evidentiary phase.

Label-Related Cases: These cases, brought by individual plaintiffs, or on behalf of a class or purported class of individual plaintiffs, allege that the use of the descriptor “Lights” or other alleged misrepresentations or omissions of labeling information constitute 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 October 23, 2017, there was 1 case brought by an individual plaintiff in Italy (1) pending against our subsidiaries, compared with 3 such cases on October 21, 2016 and 3 such cases on October 27, 2015, and one purported class action in Israel (1).

An individual plaintiff filed the purported class action, Aharon Ringer v. Philip Morris Ltd. and Globrands Ltd., on July 18, 2017, in the Central District Court of Israel. Our Israeli affiliate and an Israeli importer and distributor for other multinational tobacco companies are defendants. Plaintiff seeks to represent a class of smokers in Israel who have purchased cigarettes imported by defendants since July 18, 2010. Plaintiff estimates the class size to be 7,000,000 smokers. Plaintiff alleges that defendants misled consumers by not disclosing sufficient information about carbon monoxide, tar, and nicotine yields of, and tobacco contained in, the imported cigarettes. Plaintiff seeks various forms of relief, including an order for defendants to label cigarette packs in accordance with plaintiff’s demands, and damages for misleading consumers, breach of autonomy and unjust enrichment.

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 October 23, 2017, there were 2 public civil actions pending against our subsidiaries in Argentina (1) and Venezuela (1), compared with 2 such cases on October 21, 2016, and 2 such cases on October 27, 2015.

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 plaintiff's request to add the national government as a co-plaintiff in the case. The case is currently in the evidentiary stage.

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. In December 2012, the court admitted our subsidiary and BAT's subsidiary as interested third parties. In February 2013, our subsidiary answered the complaint.

Other Litigation

The Department of Special Investigations of the government of Thailand ("DSI") conducted an investigation into alleged underpayment by our subsidiary, Philip Morris (Thailand) Limited ("PM Thailand"), of customs duties and excise taxes relating to imports from the Philippines covering the period 2003-2007. On January 18, 2016, the Public Prosecutor filed charges against our subsidiary and seven former and current employees in the Bangkok Criminal Court alleging that PM Thailand and the individual defendants jointly and with the intention to defraud the Thai government, under-declared import prices of cigarettes to avoid full payment of taxes and duties in connection with 272 import entries of cigarettes from the Philippines during the period of July 2003 to June 2006. The government is seeking a fine of approximately THB 80.8 billion (approximately $2.43 billion). The case is in the pre-trial evidentiary phase. Trial is scheduled to begin during the last quarter of 2017. PM Thailand believes that its declared import prices are in compliance with the Customs Valuation Agreement of the World Trade Organization and Thai law and that the allegations of the Public Prosecutor are inconsistent with several decisions already taken by Thai Customs and other Thai governmental agencies.

The DSI also conducted an investigation into alleged underpayment by PM Thailand of customs duties and excise taxes relating to imports from Indonesia covering the period 2000-2003. On January 26, 2017, the Public Prosecutor filed charges against PM Thailand and its former Thai employee in the Bangkok Criminal Court alleging that PM Thailand and its former employee jointly and with the intention to defraud the Thai government under-declared import prices of cigarettes to avoid full payment of taxes and duties in connection with 780 import entries during the period from January 2002 to July 2003. The government is seeking a fine of approximately THB 19.8 billion (approximately $596 million). The case is in pre-trial proceedings and has not yet been set for trial. PM Thailand believes that its declared import prices are in compliance with the Customs Valuation Agreement of the World Trade Organization and Thai law, and that the allegations of the Public Prosecutor are inconsistent with several decisions already taken by Thai Customs and a Thai court. In May 2017, the King of Thailand signed a new customs act. The new act, which is scheduled to take effect in November 2017, would substantially limit the amount of fines that Thailand could seek in these proceedings.

The South Korean Board of Audit and Inspection (“BAI”) conducted an audit of certain Korean government agencies and the tobacco industry into whether inventory movements ahead of the January 1, 2015 increase of cigarette-related taxes by tobacco companies, including Philip Morris Korea Inc. ("PM Korea"), our South Korean affiliate, were in compliance with South Korean tax laws. In November 2016, the tax authorities completed their audit and assessed allegedly underpaid taxes and penalties. In order to avoid nonpayment financial costs, PM Korea paid approximately KRW 272 billion (approximately $240 million), of which KRW 100 billion (approximately $88 million) was paid in 2016 and KRW 172 billion (approximately $152 million) was paid in the first quarter of 2017. These amounts are included in other assets in the condensed consolidated balance sheets and in cash used in operating activities in the condensed consolidated statements of cash flows. PM Korea is appealing the assessments. The tax authorities have also referred the matter to the Public Prosecutor, who will further investigate and decide whether to file criminal charges against PM Korea and/or other alleged co-offenders. If the Public Prosecutor decides to prosecute, it may seek up to three times the underpaid tax for company criminal penalties and up to five times the underpaid tax for individual criminal penalties. PM Korea believes that it has paid cigarette-related taxes in compliance with the South Korean tax laws. In addition, the South Korean Ministry of Strategy and Finance (“MOSF”) filed a criminal complaint with the Public Prosecutor against PM Korea and its managing director. In its criminal complaint, the MOSF alleged that PM Korea exceeded the monthly product withdrawal limits that the MOSF had set in its notice. The Public Prosecutor will investigate the MOSF’s criminal complaint and decide whether to prosecute. PM Korea disagrees with the MOSF’s allegations.

We are also involved in additional litigation arising in the ordinary course of our business. While the outcomes of these proceedings are uncertain, management does not expect that the ultimate outcomes of other litigation, including any reasonably possible losses in excess of current accruals, will have a material adverse effect on our consolidated results of operations, cash flows or financial position.