Contingencies

6 Months Ended

Jun. 30, 2019

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

Contingencies

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, Israel 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, except as stated otherwise in this Note 8. Contingencies, 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.    

CCAA Proceedings and Stay of Tobacco-Related Cases Pending in Canada

As a result of the Court of Appeal of Quebec’s decision in both the Létourneau and Blais cases described below, our subsidiary, Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc. (“RBH”), and the other defendants, JTI Macdonald Corp., and Imperial Tobacco Canada Limited, sought protection in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (“CCAA”) on March 22, March 8, and March 12, respectively. CCAA is a Canadian federal law that permits a Canadian business to restructure its affairs while carrying on its business in the ordinary course. The initial CCAA order made by the Ontario Superior Court on March 22, 2019 authorizes RBH to pay all expenses incurred in carrying on its business in the ordinary course after the CCAA filing, including obligations to employees, vendors, and suppliers. As further described in Note 20. Deconsolidation of RBH, RBH is now deconsolidated from our consolidated financial statements. As part of the CCAA proceedings, there is currently a comprehensive stay up to and including October 4, 2019 of all tobacco-related litigation pending in Canada against RBH and the other defendants, including PMI and our indemnitees (PM USA and Altria), namely, the smoking and health class actions filed in various Canadian provinces and health care cost recovery actions. These proceedings are presented below under the caption “Stayed Litigation — Canada.” Ernst & Young Inc. has been appointed as monitor of RBH in the CCAA proceedings. In accordance with the CCAA process, as the parties work towards a plan of arrangement or compromise, it is anticipated that the court will set additional hearings and further extend the stay of proceedings. On April 17, 2019, the Ontario Superior Court ruled that RBH and the other defendants will not be allowed to file an application to the Supreme Court of Canada for leave to appeal the Court of Appeal’s decision in the Létourneau and the Blais cases so long as the comprehensive stay of all tobacco-related litigation in Canada remains in effect and that the time period to file the application would be extended by the stay period. While RBH believes that the findings of liability and damages in both Létourneau and the Blais cases were incorrect, the CCAA proceedings will provide a forum for RBH to seek resolution through a plan of arrangement or compromise of all tobacco-related litigation pending in Canada. It is not possible to predict the resolution of the underlying legal proceedings or the length of the CCAA process.

Stayed Litigation — Canada

Smoking and Health Litigation — Canada

In the first 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, RBH 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. The trial court issued its judgment on May 27, 2015. The trial court found RBH 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 $11.8 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 $2.37 billion)). In addition, the trial court awarded CAD 90,000 (approximately $68,780) in punitive damages, allocating CAD 30,000 (approximately $22,930) to RBH. The trial court estimated the disease class at 99,957 members. RBH appealed to the Court of Appeal of Quebec. In October 2015, the Court of Appeal ordered RBH to furnish security totaling CAD 226 million (approximately $172.7 million) to cover both the Létourneau and Blais cases, which RBH has paid in installments through March 2017. The Court of Appeal ordered Imperial Tobacco Canada Ltd. to furnish security totaling CAD 758 million (approximately $579.3 million) in installments through June 2017. JTI Macdonald Corp. was not required to furnish security in accordance with plaintiffs’ motion. 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. On March 1, 2019, the Court of Appeal issued a decision largely affirming the trial court’s findings of liability and the compensatory and punitive damages award while reducing the total amount of compensatory damages to approximately CAD 13.5 billion including interest (approximately $10.3 billion) due to the trial court’s error in the calculation of interest. The compensatory damages award is on a joint and several basis with an allocation of 20% to RBH (approximately CAD 2.7 billion, including pre-judgment interest (approximately $2.06 billion)). The Court of Appeal upheld the trial court’s findings 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 and by conspiring to prevent consumers from learning of the dangers of smoking. The Court of Appeal further held that the plaintiffs either need not prove, or had adequately proven, that these faults were a cause of the class members’ injuries. In accordance with the judgment, defendants are required to deposit their respective portions of the damages awarded in both the Létourneau case described below and the Blais case, approximately CAD 1.1 billion (approximately $840.7 million), into trust accounts within 60 days. RBH’s share of the deposit is approximately CAD 257 million (approximately $196.4 million). PMI recorded a pre-tax charge of $194 million in its consolidated results, representing $142 million net of tax, as tobacco litigation-related expense, in the first quarter of 2019. The charge reflects PMI’s assessment of the portion of the judgment that represents probable and estimable loss prior to the deconsolidation of RBH and corresponds to the trust account deposit required by the judgment.

In the second 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, RBH 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. The trial court issued its judgment on May 27, 2015. The trial court found RBH and two other Canadian manufacturers liable and awarded a total of CAD 131 million (approximately $100.1 million) in punitive damages, allocating CAD 46 million (approximately $35.2 million) to RBH. 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 found that a claims process to allocate the awarded punitive damages to individual class members would be too expensive and difficult to administer. On March 1, 2019, the Court of Appeal issued a decision largely affirming the trial court’s findings of liability and the total amount of punitive damages awarded allocating CAD 57 million including interest (approximately $43.6 million) to RBH. See the Blais description above and Note 20. Deconsolidation of RBH below for further detail concerning the security order pertaining to both Létourneau and Blais cases and the impact of the decision on PMI’s financial statements.

RBH and PMI believe the findings of liability and damages in both Létourneau and the Blais cases were incorrect and in contravention of applicable law on several grounds including the following: (i) defendants had no obligation to warn class members who knew, or should have known, of the risks of smoking; (ii) defendants cannot be liable to class members who would have smoked regardless of what warnings were given; and (iii) defendants cannot be liable to all class members given the individual differences between class members.

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, RBH, 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 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, RBH, 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.

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, RBH, 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.

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, RBH, 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.

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, RBH, 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, RBH, 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, RBH, 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.

Health Care Cost Recovery Litigation — Canada

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, RBH, 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.”

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, RBH, 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.”

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, RBH, 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.”

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, RBH, 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.”

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, RBH, 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.”

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, RBH, 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.”

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, RBH, 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.”

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, RBH, 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.”

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, RBH, 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.”

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, RBH, 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.”

__________

The table below lists the number of tobacco-related cases pertaining to combustible products pending against us and/or our subsidiaries or indemnitees as of July 23, 2019, July 24, 2018 and July 25, 2017:¹

Type of Case	Number of Cases Pending as of July 23, 2019	Number of Cases Pending as of July 24, 2018	Number of Cases Pending as of July 25, 2017
Individual Smoking and Health Cases	52	65	68
Smoking and Health Class Actions	10	11	11
Health Care Cost Recovery Actions	17	16	16
Label-Related Class Actions	1	1	—
Individual Label-Related Cases	6	1	1
Public Civil Actions	2	2	2

Since 1995, when the first tobacco-related litigation was filed against a PMI entity, 495 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 $267) 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. In March 2017, plaintiff filed an en banc appeal 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. Both appeals are still pending.

______

¹ Includes cases pending in Canada.

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 $11.8 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 $2.37 billion)). The trial court awarded CAD 90,000 (approximately $68,780) in punitive damages, allocating CAD 30,000 (approximately $22,930) to our subsidiary. The trial court ordered defendants to pay CAD 1 billion (approximately $764.3 million) of the compensatory damage award, CAD 200 million (approximately $152.9 million) of which is our subsidiary’s portion, into a trust within 60 days.	In June 2015, RBH commenced the appellate process with the Court of Appeal of Quebec. On March 1, 2019, the Court of Appeal issued a decision largely affirming the trial court's decision. (See “Stayed Litigation — Canada” for further detail.)

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 $100.1 million) in punitive damages, allocating CAD 46 million (approximately $35.2 million) to RBH. 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, RBH commenced the appellate process with the Court of Appeal of Quebec. On March 1, 2019, the Court of Appeal issued a decision largely affirming the trial court's decision. (See “Stayed Litigation — Canada” 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 $2,592), plus interest, in compensatory and moral damages. The trial 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. On October 31, 2017, the Civil and Commercial Court of Appeals of Mar del Plata ruled that plaintiff's claim was barred by the statute of limitations and it reversed the trial court's decision. On November 28, 2017, plaintiff filed an extraordinary appeal of the reversal of the trial court's decision to the Supreme Court of the Province of Buenos Aires.

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 July 23, 2019, there were a number of smoking and health cases pending against us, our subsidiaries or indemnitees, as follows:

• 52 cases brought by individual plaintiffs in Argentina (32), Brazil (7), Canada (2), Chile (4), Costa Rica (1), Italy (1), the Philippines (1), Poland (2), Turkey (1) and Scotland (1), compared with 65 such cases on July 24, 2018, and 68 cases on July 25, 2017; and

• 10 cases brought on behalf of classes of individual plaintiffs in Brazil (1) and Canada (9), compared with 11 such cases on July 24, 2018 and 11 such cases on July 25, 2017.

The class actions pending in Canada are described above under the caption “Smoking and Health Litigation — Canada.”

In the 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 $267) 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 Superior Court of Justice denied plaintiff's appeal. In March 2017, plaintiff filed an en banc appeal 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. Both appeals are still pending.

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 July 23, 2019, there were 17 health care cost recovery cases pending against us, our subsidiaries or indemnitees in Brazil (1), Canada (10), Korea (1) and Nigeria (5), compared with 16 such cases on July 24, 2018 and 16 such cases on July 25, 2017.

The health care cost recovery actions pending in Canada are described above under the caption “Health Care Cost Recovery Litigation — Canada.”

In the health care cost recovery case in Brazil, The Attorney General of Brazil v. Souza Cruz Ltda., et al., Federal Trial Court, Porto Alegre, Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil, filed May 21, 2019, we, our subsidiaries, and other members of the industry are defendants. Plaintiff seeks reimbursement for the cost of treating alleged smoking-related diseases for the past five years, payment of anticipated costs of treating future alleged smoking-related diseases, and moral damages. We and our subsidiaries have not been served with the complaint.

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 damages 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 July 23, 2019, there were 6 label-related cases brought by individual plaintiffs in Italy (1) and Chile (5) pending against our subsidiaries, compared with 1 such case on July 24, 2018, and 1 such case on July 25, 2017, and one purported class action in Israel (1).

An individual plaintiff filed a purported class action certification motion, 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. Closing arguments regarding class certification are scheduled for September 2019.

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 July 23, 2019, there were 2 public civil actions pending against our subsidiaries in Argentina (1) and Venezuela (1), compared with 2 such cases on July 24, 2018, and 2 such cases on July 25, 2017.

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 awaiting a court decision on the merits.

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.

Reduced-Risk Products

In Israel, an individual filed a purported class action certification motion, Adir Natan vs. Philip Morris Ltd., in June 2017 against our subsidiary with the Israeli District Court of Haifa related to the marketing of our Platform 1 product. In May 2019, plaintiff voluntarily withdrew the class certification motion, and the trial court dismissed the case with prejudice.

In Colombia, an individual filed a purported class action, Ana Ferrero Rebolledo vs. Philip Morris Colombia S.A., et al., in April 2019 against our subsidiaries with the Civil Court of Bogota related to the marketing of our Platform 1 product. Plaintiff alleges that our subsidiaries advertise the product in contravention of law and in a manner that misleads consumers by portraying the product in a positive light, and further asserts that the Platform 1 vapor contains many toxic compounds, creates a high level of dependence, and has damaging second-hand effects. Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief and damages on her behalf and on a behalf of two classes (class 1 - all Platform 1 consumers in Colombia who seek damages for the purchase price of the product and personal injuries related to the alleged addiction, and class 2 - all residents of the neighborhood where the advertising allegedly took place who seek damages for exposure to the alleged illegal advertising). Our subsidiaries have not been served with 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 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 $2.62 billion). In May 2017, the King of Thailand signed a new customs act. The new act, which took effect in November 2017, substantially limits the amount of fines that Thailand could seek in these proceedings. 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. Trial in the case began in November 2017. In March 2018, acting on a request from the Public Prosecutor, the court suspended the trial proceedings indefinitely and struck the case from the court list. In June 2018, the court reinstated the case, and the trial resumed in May 2019.

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 import entries during the period from January 2002 to July 2003. The government is seeking a fine of approximately THB 19.8 billion (approximately $641 million). In May 2017, the King of Thailand signed a new customs act. The new act, which took effect in November 2017, substantially limits the amount of fines that Thailand could seek in these proceedings. 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. Trial in the case began in November 2018.

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 $231 million), of which KRW 100 billion (approximately $84.9 million) was paid in 2016 and KRW 172 billion (approximately $146 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. On June 19, 2018, the Public Prosecutor decided not to file criminal charges against PM Korea and/or other alleged co-offenders. The Public Prosecutor also decided not to prosecute PM Korea and its managing director in connection with a criminal complaint against them that had been filed by the South Korean Ministry of Strategy and Finance (“MOSF”). In the criminal complaint, the MOSF alleged that PM Korea exceeded the monthly product withdrawal limits that the MOSF had set in its notice. On March 5, 2019, the Supreme Prosecutor's Office dismissed both the tax authorities' and the MOSF's appeals on the decisions of the Public Prosecutor, concluding the criminal investigations in these matters.

A putative shareholder class action lawsuit, In re Philip Morris International Inc. Securities Litigation, is pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, purportedly on behalf of purchasers of Philip Morris International Inc. stock between July 26, 2016 and April 18, 2018.  The lawsuit names Philip Morris International Inc. and certain officers and employees as defendants and includes allegations that the defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose information about PMI’s business, operations, financial condition, and prospects, related to product sales of, and alleged irregularities in clinical studies of, PMI’s Platform 1 product.  The lawsuit seeks various forms of relief, including damages. In November, 2018, the court consolidated three putative shareholder class action lawsuits with similar allegations previously filed in the Southern District of New York (namely, City of Westland Police and Fire Retirement System v. Philip Morris International Inc., et al, Greater Pennsylvania Carpenters’ Pension Fund v. Philip Morris International Inc., et al., and Gilchrist v. Philip Morris International Inc., et al.) into these proceedings. A putative shareholder class action lawsuit, Rubenstahl v. Philip Morris International Inc., et al., that had been previously filed in December, 2017 in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, was voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiff due to similar allegations in these proceedings. We believe that this lawsuit is without merit and intend to defend it vigorously.

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.