Contingencies

12 Months Ended

Dec. 31, 2021

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 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 17. 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, 2019 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's financial results have been deconsolidated from our consolidated financial statements since March 22, 2019. As part of the CCAA proceedings, there is currently a comprehensive stay up to and including March 31, 2022 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 in a confidential mediation, 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 cigarette 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 suffers allegedly 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 $12.1 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 $2.4 billion)). In addition, the trial court awarded CAD 90,000 (approximately $70,500) in punitive damages, allocating CAD 30,000 (approximately $23,500) 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 $177 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 $594 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 $10.6 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 $2.1 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 were 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 $862 million), into trust accounts within 60 days. RBH’s share of the deposit was approximately CAD 257 million (approximately $194 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 cigarette 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 $103 million) in punitive damages, allocating CAD 46 million (approximately $36 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 $45 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 December 31, 2021, December 31, 2020 and December 31, 2019:¹

Type of Case	Number of Cases Pending as of December 31, 2021	Number of Cases Pending as of December 31, 2020	Number of Cases Pending as of December 31, 2019
Individual Smoking and Health Cases	40	43	50
Smoking and Health Class Actions	9	9	10
Health Care Cost Recovery Actions	17	17	17
Label-Related Class Actions	—	—	—
Individual Label-Related Cases	3	5	5
Public Civil Actions	1	2	2

Since 1995, when the first tobacco-related litigation was filed against a PMI entity, 523 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. Fourteen cases have had decisions in favor of plaintiffs. Ten of these cases have subsequently reached final resolution in our favor and four remain on appeal.

______

¹ Includes cases pending in Canada.

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
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 $12.1 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 $2.4 billion)). The trial court awarded CAD 90,000 (approximately $70,500) in punitive damages, allocating CAD 30,000 (approximately $23,500) to our subsidiary. The trial court ordered defendants to pay CAD 1 billion (approximately $783 million) of the compensatory damage award, CAD 200 million (approximately $157 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 $103 million) in punitive damages, allocating CAD 46 million (approximately $36 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 $1,044), 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 May 17, 2021 plaintiff filed a federal extraordinary appeal. On November 1, 2021, the Supreme Court of the Province of Buenos Aires dismissed plaintiff's federal extraordinary appeal. On November 10, 2021, plaintiff filed a direct appeal before the Federal Supreme Court.

Date	Location of Court/Name of Plaintiff	Type of Case	Verdict	Post-Trial Developments
June 17, 2021	Argentina/Claudia Milano	Individual Action	On June 17, 2021, the Civil Court No. 9 - Mar del Plata, issued a verdict in favor of plaintiff, an individual smoker, and awarded her smoking cessation treatments, ARS 150,000 (approximately $1,423), in compensatory and moral damages, and ARS 4,000,000 (approximately $37,958) in punitive damages, plus interest and costs. The trial court found that our subsidiary failed to warn plaintiff of the risk of becoming addicted to cigarettes.	On July 2, 2021, our subsidiary filed its notice of appeal. In addition, plaintiff filed an appeal challenging the dismissal of the claim for psychological damages. As required by local law, our subsidiary deposited the damages awarded, plus interest and costs, in total ARS 6,114,428 (approximately $58,024), into a court escrow account. Our subsidiary challenged the amount determined by the court. The Mar del Plata Court of Appeals granted our subsidiary's challenge to the escrow amount determined by the trial court. As a result, on December 16, 2021, ARS 893,428 (approximately $8,478) was returned to our subsidiary. If our subsidiary ultimately prevails on appeal, the remaining deposited amounts will be returned to our subsidiary.

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 December 31, 2021, there were a number of smoking and health cases pending against us, our subsidiaries or indemnitees, as follows:

•40 cases brought by individual plaintiffs in Argentina (31), Brazil (2), Canada (2), Chile (1), the Philippines (1), Turkey (1) and Scotland (1), as well as 1 case brought by an individual plaintiff in the United States District Court for the District of Oregon in May 2021. The provisions of the 2008 Share Distribution Agreement between PMI and Altria provide for indemnities to PMI for certain liabilities concerning tobacco products as described above under the caption "Tobacco-Related Litigation,"compared with 43 such cases on December 31, 2020, and 50 cases on December 31, 2019; and

•9 cases brought on behalf of classes of individual plaintiffs, compared with 9 such cases on December 31, 2020 and 10 such cases on December 31, 2019.

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

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 December 31, 2021, 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 17 such cases on December 31, 2020 and 17 such cases on December 31, 2019.

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 in certain prior years, payment of anticipated costs of treating future alleged smoking-related diseases, and moral damages. Defendants filed answers to the complaint in May 2020.

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 challenging 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 objections to the court's jurisdiction. We have appealed. Currently, the case is stayed in the trial court pending the appeals of certain co-defendants relating to service objections.

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 trial court dismissed the case in its entirety on November 20, 2020. Plaintiff appealed.

Label-Related Cases: These cases, now brought only by 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 December 31, 2021, there were 3 label-related cases brought by individual plaintiffs in Italy (1) and Chile (2) pending against our subsidiaries, compared with 5 such cases on December 31, 2020, and 5 such cases on December 31, 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 December 31, 2021, there was 1 public civil action pending against our subsidiary in Venezuela (1), compared with 2 such cases on December 31, 2020, and 2 such cases on December 31, 2019.

In a 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 Colombia, an individual filed a purported class action, Ana Ferrero Rebolledo v. 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 alleged 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 sought 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 answered the complaint in January 2020, and in February 2020, plaintiff filed an amended complaint. The amended complaint modifies the relief sought on behalf of the named plaintiff and on behalf of a single class (all consumers of Platform 1 products in Colombia who seek damages for the product purchase price and personal injuries related to the use of an allegedly harmful product). In June 2021, our subsidiaries answered the amended 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 $2.4 billion). In May 2017, Thailand enacted 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 and concluded in September 2019. In November 2019, the trial court found our subsidiary guilty of under-declaration of the prices and imposed a fine of approximately THB 1.2 billion (approximately $36 million). The trial court dismissed all charges against the individual defendants. In December 2019, as required by the Thai law, our subsidiary paid the fine. This payment is included in other assets on the consolidated balance sheets and negatively impacted net cash provided by operating activities in the consolidated statements of cash flows in the period of payment. Our subsidiary filed an appeal of the trial court's decision. In addition, the Public Prosecutor filed an appeal of the trial court's decision challenging the dismissal of charges against the individual defendants and the amount of the fine imposed. If our subsidiary ultimately prevails on appeal, then Thailand will be required to return this payment to our subsidiary. The appellate court is scheduled to issue its decision on the appeals on June 1, 2022.

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 $599 million). In May 2017, Thailand enacted  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 and concluded in December 2019. In March 2020, the trial court found our subsidiary guilty of under-declaration of the prices and imposed a fine of approximately THB 130 million (approximately $4 million). The trial court dismissed all charges against the individual defendant. In April 2020, as required by Thai law, our subsidiary paid the fine. This payment is included in other assets on the condensed consolidated balance sheets and negatively impacted net cash provided by operating activities in the condensed consolidated statements of cash flows in the period of payment. Our subsidiary filed an appeal of the trial court's decision. In addition, the Public Prosecutor filed an appeal of the trial court's decision challenging the dismissal of charges against the individual defendant and the amount of the fine imposed. If our subsidiary ultimately prevails on appeal, then Thailand will be required to return this payment to our subsidiary.

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 subsidiary, 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 $227 million), of which KRW 100 billion (approximately $83 million) was paid in 2016 and KRW 172 billion (approximately $143 million) was paid in the first quarter of 2017.  These paid amounts are included in other assets in the consolidated balance sheets and negatively impacted net cash provided by operating activities in the consolidated statements of cash flows in the period of payment.  PM Korea appealed the assessments. In January 2020, a trial court ruled that PM Korea did not underpay taxes in the amount of approximately KRW 218 billion (approximately $182 million). The tax authorities appealed this decision to the appellate court. In September 2020, the appellate court upheld the trial court's decision. The tax authorities have appealed to the Supreme Court of South Korea. In June 2020, another trial court ruled that PM Korea did not underpay approximately KRW 54 billion (approximately $45 million) of alleged underpayments. The government agencies appealed this decision. In January 2021, the appellate court upheld the trial court's decision. The government agencies appealed to the Supreme Court of South Korea. If the tax authorities and government agencies ultimately lose, then they would be required to return the paid amounts to PM Korea.

The Moscow Tax Inspectorate for Major Taxpayers (“MTI”) conducted an audit of AO Philip Morris Izhora (“PM Izhora”), our Russian subsidiary, for the 2015-2017 financial years. On July 26, 2019, MTI issued its initial assessment, claiming that intercompany sales of cigarettes between PM Izhora and another Russian subsidiary prior to excise tax increases and submission by PM Izhora of the maximum retail sales price notifications for cigarettes to the tax authorities were improper under Russian tax laws and resulted in underpayment of excise taxes and VAT. In August 2019, PM Izhora submitted its objections disagreeing with MTI’s allegations set forth in the initial assessment and MTI’s methodology for calculating the alleged underpayments. MTI accepted some of PM Izhora’s arguments, and in September 2019, issued the final tax assessment claiming an underpayment of RUB $24.3 billion (approximately $374 million), including penalties and interest. In accordance with Russian tax laws, PM Izhora paid the entire amount of MTI’s final assessment. This amount was neither imposed on, nor concurrent with, the specific revenue-producing transaction, nor was it collected from customers of our Russian subsidiaries. In the third quarter of 2019, PMI recorded a pre-tax charge of $374 million, in marketing, administration and research costs in the condensed consolidated statements of earnings, representing $315 million net of an associated income tax benefit of $59 million.

The Saudi Arabia Customs General Authority issued its assessments requiring our distributors to pay additional customs duties in the amount of approximately 1.5 billion Saudi Riyal, or approximately $396 million, in relation to the fees paid by these distributors under their agreements with our subsidiary for exclusive rights to distribute our products in Saudi Arabia. In order to challenge these assessments, the distributors posted bank guarantees. To enable the distributors' challenge, our subsidiary agreed with the banks to bear a portion of the amount the authority may draw on the bank guarantees. In September and October 2020, respectively, the distributors lost their challenges of the assessments. Both distributors appealed, and in June 2021, the Customs Appeal Committee in Riyadh notified the distributors of its decisions to largely reject their appeals. On the basis of the above-mentioned decisions, in June 2021, PMI recorded a pre-tax charge of $246 million in relation to the period of 2014 through 2020 in line with existing and contemplated arrangements with the distributors. The estimated amounts for 2021 are immaterial. In accordance with U.S. GAAP, the charge was recorded as a reduction in net revenues on the consolidated statements of earnings for the three months and six months ended June 30, 2021. Despite the unfavorable decisions, our subsidiary believes that customs duties paid in Saudi Arabia were in compliance with the applicable law and the WTO Customs Valuation Agreement.

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. On February 4, 2020, the court granted defendants’ motion in its entirety, dismissing all but one of the plaintiffs’ claims with prejudice.  The court noted that one of plaintiffs’ claims (allegations relating to four non-clinical studies of PMI’s Platform 1 product) did not state a viable claim but allowed plaintiffs to replead that claim by March 3, 2020.  On February 18, 2020, the plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration of the court's February 4th decision; this motion was denied on September 21, 2020. On September 28, 2020, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint seeking to replead allegations relating to four non-clinical studies of PMI's Platform 1 product. On September 10, 2021, the court granted defendant's motion to dismiss plaintiffs' amended complaint in its entirety. On October 8, 2021, the plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeal for the Second Circuit. We believe that this lawsuit is without merit and will continue to defend it vigorously.

In April 2020, affiliates of British American Tobacco plc (“BAT”) commenced patent infringement proceedings, RAI Strategic Holdings, Inc., et al. v. Altria Client Services LLC, et al.,  in the federal court in the Eastern District of Virginia, where PMI's subsidiary, Philip Morris Products S.A., as well as Altria Group, Inc.'s subsidiaries, are defendants. Plaintiffs seek damages and injunctive relief against the commercialization of the Platform 1 products in the United States.  In April 2020, BAT affiliates filed a complaint against PMI, Philip Morris Products S.A., Altria Group, Inc., and its subsidiaries before the International Trade Commission ("ITC"). Plaintiffs seek an order to prevent the importation of Platform 1 products into the United States. The ITC evidentiary hearing closed on February 1, 2021. On May 14, 2021, the administrative law judge issued an Initial and Recommended Determination ("ID/RD") finding that the Platform 1 product infringes two of the three patents asserted by Plaintiffs, recommending that the ITC issue a Limited Exclusion order against infringing products, and recommending against a cease-and-desist, as well as recommending against a bond pending Presidential review of the ITC's Final Determination ("FD"). Defendants and Plaintiffs filed separate Petitions for Review with the ITC of the ID on May 28, 2021; on July 27, 2021, the ITC granted each of the petitions in part, deciding to review certain issues in the ID. Plaintiffs and Defendants also submitted brief statements of the public interest factors in issue to the ITC on June 15, 2021. On September 29, 2021, the ITC issued its FD finding a violation of section 337 of the U.S. Tariff Act and issued (a) a limited exclusion order against Philip Morris Products S.A., prohibiting, inter alia, the importation of Platform 1 product and infringing components; and (b) a cease-and-desist order against Altria Client Services, LLC and its affiliate prohibiting, inter alia, sales of imported Platform 1 products. The ITC predicated the orders on its finding that Platform 1 products infringe two patents owned by a BAT affiliate. The ITC also found that Platform 1 products do not infringe a third patent owned by a BAT affiliate. The ITC further held that there were insufficient concerns over public interest to prevent the issuance of remedial orders. Following the Presidential Review period, the orders became effective and Defendants filed a petition for review of the FD with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Defendants also filed motions in the ITC and Federal Circuit for a stay of the orders pending disposition of the appeal; the ITC denied the motion on January 20, 2022 and the Federal Circuit denied the motion on January 25, 2022. We estimate that an adverse ruling is probable due to our inability to import the products and components impacted by the ITC's FD with immaterial financial impact. In the Eastern District of Virginia case, the defendants also counterclaimed that BAT infringed their patents relating to certain e-vapor products, seeking damages for, and injunctive relief against, the commercialization of these products by BAT; defendants' claims against BAT are set for trial beginning the week of June 6, 2022. Upon petition of Philip Morris Products S.A., the Patent Trial and Appeal Board ("PTAB") of the United States Patent and Trademark Office has instituted review of certain claims pertaining to four of the six patents asserted by BAT affiliates in both proceedings. On January 11, 2022, PTAB issued its final decision on one of the two patents underlying the ITC's FD, invalidating all challenged claims of BAT's patent. We expect PTAB's final decision on the second of the two BAT patents underlying the ITC's FD to arrive on or before April 2, 2022; the parties may appeal PTAB results to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

In April 2020, BAT’s affiliate commenced patent infringement proceedings, Nicoventures Trading Limited v. PM GmbH, et al., against PMI’s German subsidiary, Philip Morris GmbH, and Philip Morris Products S.A., in the Regional Court in Munich, Germany. Plaintiffs seek damages and injunctive relief against the commercialization of the Platform 1 products in Germany. In June 2021, the court stayed the proceeding in respect of one of the two patents asserted by BAT’s Affiliate.

In September 2020, BAT’s affiliates commenced patent infringement and unfair competition proceedings, RAI Strategic Holdings, Inc., et al. v. Philip Morris Products S.A., et al., against Philip Morris Products S.A. and PMI’s Italian subsidiaries, Philip Morris Manufacturing & Technology Bologna S.p.A. and Philip Morris Italia S.r.l., in the Court of Milan, Italy. Plaintiffs seek damages, as well as injunctive relief against the manufacture in Italy of the Platform 1 heated tobacco units allegedly infringing the asserted patents and the commercialization of the Platform 1 products in Italy. As part of this proceeding, in October 2020, BAT’s affiliates filed a

request based on one of the two asserted patents seeking preliminary injunctive relief against the manufacture and commercialization of the Platform 1 products in Italy.

In October 2020, BAT’s affiliates commenced patent infringement proceedings, RAI Strategic Holdings, Inc., et al. v. Philip Morris Japan, Limited, et al., against PMI’s Japanese subsidiary, Philip Morris Japan Limited, and a third-party distributor in the Tokyo District Court. Plaintiffs seek damages and injunctive relief against the commercialization of the Platform 1 products in Japan.

In November 2020, BAT’s affiliates commenced patent infringement proceedings, RAI Strategic Holdings, Inc., et al. v. Philip Morris Romania SRL, et al., against PMI’s Romanian subsidiaries, Philip Morris Romania S.R.L. and Philip Morris Trading S.R.L., and a third-party distributor in the Court of Law of Bucharest, Civil Registry. Plaintiffs seek damages and preliminary and permanent injunctive relief against the manufacture and commercialization of the Platform 1 products in Romania. In February 2021, the court dismissed plaintiffs’ request for a preliminary injunction. In April 2021, the appellate court denied plaintiffs' appeal, confirming the dismissal of plaintiffs' request for preliminary injunction. Plaintiffs' proceeding requesting damages and a permanent injunction remains pending before the Court of Law of Bucharest, Civil Registry. In an October 14, 2021 hearing, the court stayed the proceeding.

In March 2021, BAT’s affiliates commenced patent infringement proceedings, RAI Strategic Holdings, Inc., et al. v. Philip Morris Korea, Co., Ltd., against PM Korea in the Seoul Central District Court. Plaintiffs seek damages and injunctive relief against the commercialization of the Platform 1 heated tobacco units in South Korea.

Other patent challenges by both parties are pending in various jurisdictions.

We believe that the foregoing proceedings by the affiliates of BAT are without merit and will defend them 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.

Third-Party Guarantees

On October 17, 2020, Medicago Inc., an equity method investee of Philip Morris Investments B.V. (“PMIBV”), a PMI subsidiary, entered into a contribution agreement with the Canadian government (the “Contribution Agreement”) whereby the Canadian government agreed to contribute up to CAD 173 million (approximately $131 million on the date of signing) to Medicago Inc., to support its on-going COVID-19 vaccine development and clinical trials, and for the construction of its Quebec City manufacturing facility (the “Project”). PMIBV and the majority shareholder of Medicago Inc. are also parties to the Contribution Agreement as guarantors of Medicago Inc.’s obligations thereunder on a joint and several basis (“Co-Guarantors”). The Co-Guarantors agreed to repay amounts contributed by the Canadian government plus interest, if Medicago Inc. fails to do so, and could be responsible for the costs of other Medicago’s obligations (such as the achievement of specific milestones of the Project). The maximum amount of these obligations is currently non-estimable. As of December 31, 2021, PMI has determined that these guarantees did not have a material impact on its consolidated financial statements.

In connection with the Contribution Agreement, PMIBV and the majority shareholder of Medicago Inc. entered into a guarantors’ agreement that apportions Co-Guarantors’ obligations and limits those of PMIBV to its share of holdings in Medicago Inc. During 2021, Medicago Inc. initiated additional rounds of equity funding in which PMIBV did not participate. As a result, PMIBV’s share of holdings in Medicago Inc. was reduced from approximately 32% to approximately 23% as of December 31, 2021. The guarantees are in effect through March 31, 2026.