2.2.0.7 false Legal Proceedings 0214 - Disclosure - Legal Proceedings true false false false 1 USD false false USD Standard http://www.xbrl.org/2003/iso4217 USD iso4217 0 Pure Standard http://www.xbrl.org/2003/instance pure xbrli 0 USDEPS Divide http://www.xbrl.org/2003/iso4217 USD iso4217 http://www.xbrl.org/2003/instance shares xbrli 0 Shares Standard http://www.xbrl.org/2003/instance shares xbrli 0 $ 2 Legal Proceedings [Abstract] 0 lo_LegalProceedingsAbstract lo false na duration Legal Proceedings. false false false false false true false false false false false false 1 false false false false 0 0 false false false xbrli:stringItemType string Legal Proceedings. false 3 Legal Proceedings 1 us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureTextBlock us-gaap true na duration No definition available. false false false false false false false false false false false verboselabel false 1 false false false false 0 0   <div style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif"> <div align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 12pt"><b>14. Legal Proceedings</b> </div> <div align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt"><b>Overview</b> </div> <div align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt">     As of October 20, 2010, 11,215 product liability cases are pending against cigarette manufacturers in the United States. Lorillard Tobacco is a defendant in 10,267 of these cases. Lorillard, Inc. is a co-defendant in 707 pending cases. A total of 7,586 of these lawsuits are <i>Engle </i>Progeny Cases, described below, which include approximately 4,400 <i>Engle </i>Progeny claims initially asserted in a small number of multi-plaintiff actions that were severed into separate lawsuits by one Florida federal court in 2009. In addition to the product liability cases, Lorillard Tobacco and, in some instances, Lorillard, Inc., are defendants in Filter Cases and Tobacco-Related Antitrust Cases. </div> <div align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt">     Pending cases against Lorillard are those in which Lorillard Tobacco or Lorillard, Inc. have been joined to the litigation by either receipt of service of process, or execution of a waiver thereof, and a dismissal order has not been entered with respect to Lorillard Tobacco or Lorillard, Inc. The table below lists the number of certain tobacco-related cases pending against Lorillard as of the dates listed. A description of each type of case follows the table. </div> <div align="center"> <table style="font-size: 10pt; text-align: left" cellspacing="0" border="0" cellpadding="0" width="100%">  <tr valign="bottom"> <td width="88%"> </td> <td width="5%"> </td> <td width="3%"> </td> <td width="1%"> </td> <td width="3%"> </td> </tr> <tr style="font-size: 8pt" valign="bottom"> <td> </td> <td> </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="center" colspan="3"><b>Total Number of Cases</b></td> </tr> <tr style="font-size: 8pt" valign="bottom"> <td> </td> <td> </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="center" colspan="3"><b>Pending against Lorillard as of</b></td> </tr> <tr style="font-size: 8pt" valign="bottom"> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="left" style="border-bottom: 1px solid #000000"><b>Type of Case</b></td> <td> </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="center" colspan="3" style="border-bottom: 1px solid #000000"><b>October 20, 2010</b></td> </tr>   <tr valign="bottom" style="background: #cceeff"> <td> <div style="margin-left:15px; text-indent:-15px">Conventional Product Liability Cases </div></td> <td> </td> <td> </td> <td align="right">35</td> <td> </td> </tr> <tr valign="bottom"> <td> <div style="margin-left:15px; text-indent:-15px"><i>Engle </i>Progeny Cases<sup style="font-size: 85%; vertical-align: text-top">(1)</sup> </div></td> <td> </td> <td> </td> <td align="right">7,586</td> <td> </td> </tr> <tr valign="bottom" style="background: #cceeff"> <td> <div style="margin-left:15px; text-indent:-15px">West Virginia Individual Personal Injury Cases </div></td> <td> </td> <td> </td> <td align="right">42</td> <td> </td> </tr> <tr valign="bottom"> <td> <div style="margin-left:15px; text-indent:-15px">Flight Attendant Cases </div></td> <td> </td> <td> </td> <td align="right">2,593</td> <td> </td> </tr> <tr valign="bottom" style="background: #cceeff"> <td> <div style="margin-left:15px; text-indent:-15px">Class Action Cases </div></td> <td> </td> <td> </td> <td align="right">6</td> <td> </td> </tr> <tr valign="bottom"> <td> <div style="margin-left:15px; text-indent:-15px">Reimbursement Cases </div></td> <td> </td> <td> </td> <td align="right">5</td> <td> </td> </tr> <tr valign="bottom" style="background: #cceeff"> <td> <div style="margin-left:15px; text-indent:-15px">Filter Cases </div></td> <td> </td> <td> </td> <td align="right">34</td> <td> </td> </tr> <tr valign="bottom"> <td> <div style="margin-left:15px; text-indent:-15px">Tobacco-Related Antitrust Cases </div></td> <td> </td> <td> </td> <td align="right">1</td> <td> </td> </tr>  </table> </div> <div align="left"> <div style="font-size: 3pt; margin-top: 16pt; width: 18%; border-top: 1px solid #000000">  </div> </div> <table width="100%" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" style="font-size: 10pt; text-align: left"> <tr> <td width="3%"></td> <td width="1%"></td> <td width="96"></td> </tr> <tr valign="top"> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="left"><sup style="font-size: 85%; vertical-align: text-top">(1)</sup></td> <td> </td> <td>In November 2009, one Florida federal court entered orders that severed the claims of approximately 4,400 <i>Engle </i>Progeny plaintiffs, initially asserted in a small number of multi-plaintiff actions, into separate lawsuits.</td> </tr> </table> <div align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt">     <i>Conventional Product Liability Cases. </i>Conventional Product Liability Cases are brought by individuals who allege cancer or other health effects caused by smoking cigarettes, by using smokeless tobacco products, by addiction to tobacco, or by exposure to environmental tobacco smoke. Lorillard Tobacco is a defendant in each of the Conventional Product Liability cases listed in the table above, and Lorillard, Inc. is a co-defendant in three of the Conventional Product Liability cases. </div> <div align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt">     <i>Engle Progeny Cases. Engle </i>Progeny Cases are brought by individuals who purport to be members of the decertified <i>Engle </i>class. These cases are pending in a number of Florida courts. Lorillard Tobacco is a defendant in each of the <i>Engle </i>Progeny Cases listed in the above table and Lorillard, Inc. is a co-defendant in 700 <i>Engle </i>Progeny Cases. Some of the <i>Engle </i>Progeny cases have been filed on behalf of multiple class members. The time period for filing <i>Engle </i>Progeny Cases expired in January 2008 and no additional cases may be filed. It is possible that courts may sever remaining suits filed by multiple class members into separate individual cases. </div> <div align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt">     <i>West Virginia Individual Personal Injury Cases. </i>In a 1999 administrative order, the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals transferred a group of cases brought by individuals who allege cancer or other health effects caused by smoking cigarettes, by smoking cigars, or by using smokeless tobacco products, to a single West Virginia court (the “West Virginia Individual Personal Injury Cases”). The plaintiffs’ claims alleging injury from smoking cigarettes have been consolidated for trial. The plaintiffs’ claims alleging injury from the use of other tobacco products have been severed from the consolidated cigarette claims and have not been consolidated for trial. Lorillard Tobacco is a defendant in each of the West Virginia Personal Injury Cases listed in the above table. Lorillard, Inc. is not a defendant in any of the West Virginia Individual Personal Injury Cases. The time for filing a case that could be consolidated for trial with the West Virginia Personal Injury Cases expired in 2000. </div>   </div>  <div style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif"> <div align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt">     <i>Flight Attendant Cases. </i>Flight Attendant Cases are brought by non-smoking flight attendants alleging injury from exposure to environmental smoke in the cabins of aircraft. Plaintiffs in these cases may not seek punitive damages for injuries that arose prior to January 15, 1997. Lorillard Tobacco is a defendant in each of the Flight Attendant Cases listed in the above table. Lorillard, Inc. is not a defendant in any of the Flight Attendant Cases. The time for filing Flight Attendant Cases expired in 2000 and no additional cases in this category may be filed. </div> <div align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt">     <i>Class Action Cases. </i>Class Action Cases are purported to be brought on behalf of large numbers of individuals for damages allegedly caused by smoking. Lorillard Tobacco is a defendant in each of the Class Action Cases listed in the above table, and Lorillard, Inc. is a co-defendant in two of the Class Action Cases. Neither Lorillard Tobacco nor Lorillard, Inc. is a defendant in additional Class Action Cases that are pending against other cigarette manufacturers, including approximately 35 “lights” Class Action Cases and four Class Action Cases that are based primarily on medical monitoring. </div> <div align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt">     <i>Reimbursement Cases. </i>Reimbursement Cases are brought by or on behalf of entities seeking equitable relief and reimbursement of expenses incurred in providing health care to individuals who allegedly were injured by smoking. Plaintiffs in these cases have included the U.S. federal government, U.S. state and local governments, foreign governmental entities, hospitals or hospital districts, American Indian tribes, labor unions, private companies and private citizens. Four Reimbursement Cases are pending against Lorillard Tobacco in the United States and one Reimbursement Case is pending in Israel. Lorillard, Inc. is a co-defendant in two of the Reimbursement Cases pending in the United States. Plaintiffs in the Reimbursement Case in Israel have attempted to assert claims against Lorillard, Inc. </div> <div align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt">     Included in this category is the suit filed by the federal government, <i>United States of America v. Philip Morris USA</i>, <i>Inc. (“Phillip Morris”)</i>, <i>et al.</i>, that sought to recover profits earned by the defendants and other equitable relief. In August 2006, the trial court issued its final judgment and remedial order and granted injunctive and other equitable relief. The final judgment did not award monetary damages. In May 2009, the final judgment was largely affirmed by an appellate court. In June 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court denied review of the case. See “Reimbursement Cases” below. </div> <div align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt">     <i>Filter Cases. </i>Filter Cases are brought by individuals, including former employees of Lorillard Tobacco, who seek damages resulting from their alleged exposure to asbestos fibers that were incorporated into filter material used in one brand of cigarettes manufactured by Lorillard Tobacco for a limited period of time ending more than 50 years ago. Lorillard Tobacco is a defendant in 33 of the 34 Filter Cases listed in the above table. Lorillard, Inc. is a co-defendant in two of the 33 Filter Cases that are pending against Lorillard Tobacco. Lorillard, Inc. is also a defendant in one additional Filter Case in which Lorillard Tobacco is not a defendant. </div> <div align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt">     <i>Tobacco-Related Antitrust Cases</i>. A number of cases have been brought against cigarette manufacturers alleging that defendants conspired to set the price of cigarettes in violation of federal and state antitrust and unfair business practices statutes. In these cases, plaintiffs seek class certification on behalf of persons who purchased cigarettes directly or indirectly from one or more of the defendant cigarette manufacturers. Lorillard Tobacco is a defendant in the Tobacco-Related Antitrust Case in the table above. Lorillard, Inc. is not a defendant in any of these cases. </div> <div align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt">     Plaintiffs assert a broad range of legal theories in these cases, including, among others, theories of negligence, fraud, misrepresentation, strict liability, breach of warranty, enterprise liability (including claims asserted under the federal Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”)), civil conspiracy, intentional infliction of harm, injunctive relief, indemnity, restitution, unjust enrichment, public nuisance, claims based on antitrust laws and state consumer protection acts, and claims based on failure to warn of the harmful or addictive nature of tobacco products. </div> <div align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt">     Plaintiffs in most of the cases seek unspecified amounts of compensatory damages and punitive damages that may range into the billions of dollars. Plaintiffs in some of the cases seek treble damages, statutory damages, disgorgement of profits, equitable and injunctive relief, and medical monitoring, among other damages. </div>   </div>  <div style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif"> <div align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 12pt"><b>Tobacco-Related Product Liability Litigation</b> </div> <div align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt"><b><i>Conventional Product Liability Cases</i></b> </div> <div align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt">     Since January 1, 2008, verdicts have been returned in four Conventional Product Liability Cases against cigarette manufactures. Neither Lorillard Tobacco nor Lorillard, Inc. was a defendant in any of these trials. Juries found in favor of the plaintiffs in each of these trials. In one of the trials, the jury awarded actual damages. Two other cases were re-trials ordered by appellate courts in which juries were permitted to consider only the amount of punitive damages to award. Both of these trials resulted in punitive damages verdicts that awarded the plaintiffs $1.5 million in one of the cases and $13.8 million in the other. Appeals are pending in these three matters. In a 2010 trial, a jury awarded actual damages and determined that the plaintiff was entitled to an award of punitive damages. The court will decide the amount of the punitive damages award, but it had not issued a verdict as of October 20, 2010. In rulings addressing cases tried in earlier years, some appellate courts have reversed verdicts returned in favor of the plaintiffs while other judgments that awarded damages to smokers have been affirmed on appeal. Manufacturers have exhausted their appeals and have been required to pay damages to plaintiffs in eleven individual cases since 2001. Punitive damages were paid to the smokers in five of these cases. Neither Lorillard Tobacco nor Lorillard, Inc. was a party to any of these matters. </div> <div align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt">     As of October 20, 2010, trial was not underway in any Conventional Product Liability Case. One case in which Lorillard Tobacco is a defendant is scheduled for trial in November 2010. Lorillard, Inc. is not a defendant in this case. Additional Conventional Product Liability Cases are also scheduled for trial in 2010. Trial dates are subject to change. </div> <div align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 12pt"><b><i>Engle Progeny Cases</i></b> </div> <div align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt">     In 2006, the Florida Supreme Court issued a ruling in <i>Engle v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co</i>., <i>et al., </i>that had been certified as a class action on behalf of Florida residents, and survivors of Florida residents, who were injured or died from medical conditions allegedly caused by addiction to smoking. During a three-phase trial, a Florida jury awarded actual damages to three individuals and approximately $145 billion in punitive damages to the certified class. In its 2006 decision, the Florida Supreme Court vacated the punitive damages award, determined that the case could not proceed further as a class action and ordered decertification of the class. The Florida Supreme Court also reinstated the actual damages awards to two of the three individuals whose claims were heard during the first phase of the <i>Engle </i>trial. These two awards totaled $7 million, and both verdicts were paid in February 2008. Lorillard Tobacco’s payment to these two individuals, including interest, totaled approximately $3 million. </div> <div align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt">     The Florida Supreme Court’s 2006 ruling also permitted <i>Engle </i>class members to file individual actions, including claims for punitive damages. The court further held that these individuals are entitled to rely on a number of the jury’s findings in favor of the plaintiffs in the first phase of the <i>Engle </i>trial. The time period for filing <i>Engle </i>Progeny Cases expired in January 2008 and no additional cases may be filed. In 2009, the Florida Supreme Court rejected a petition that sought to extend the time for purported class members to file an additional lawsuit. </div> <div align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt">     Some of the <i>Engle </i>Progeny Cases were filed on behalf of multiple plaintiffs. Various courts have entered orders severing the cases filed by multiple plaintiffs into separate actions. In 2009, one Florida federal court entered orders that severed the claims of approximately 4,400 <i>Engle</i> Progeny plaintiffs, initially asserted in a small number of multi-plaintiff actions, into separate lawsuits. In some cases, spouses or children of alleged former class members have also brought derivative claims. </div> <div align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt">     The <i>Engle </i>Progeny Cases are pending in various Florida state and federal courts. Some of these courts, including courts that have presided over <i>Engle </i>Progeny Cases that have been tried, have issued rulings that address whether these individuals are entitled to rely on a number of the jury’s findings in favor of the plaintiffs in the first phase of the <i>Engle </i>trial. Some of these decisions have led to appeals, and some of these appeals are pending. In one of these appeals, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit returned to a federal trial court for further consideration the question of how courts should apply the jury’s findings in favor of the plaintiffs in the first phase of the <i>Engle </i>trial. The Court of Appeals determined that, based on Florida law, plaintiffs in the <i>Engle </i>Progeny Cases are entitled to some use of those jury findings but that, on the basis of the appellate record, it was premature for the Court of Appeals to decide what use plaintiffs can make of these findings. The Court of Appeals did not address the question of the effect of federal due process limitations on the application of the jury findings on the basis that consideration of federal constitutional limitations was not necessary to its decision. </div> <div align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt">     Lorillard Tobacco and Lorillard, Inc. are defendants in <i>Engle </i>Progeny Cases that have been placed on courts’ 2010 and 2011 trial calendars or in which specific trial dates have been set. Trial schedules are subject to change and it is not possible to predict how many of the cases pending against Lorillard Tobacco or Lorillard, Inc. will be tried during 2010 or 2011. It also is not possible to predict whether some courts will implement procedures that consolidate multiple <i>Engle </i>Progeny Cases for trial. </div> <div align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt">     As of October 20, 2010, trial was underway in two <i>Engle </i>Progeny Cases. Lorillard Tobacco is a defendant in one of these cases, <i>Rohr v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, et al.</i>, pending in the Circuit Court of Broward County, Florida. Lorillard, Inc. is not a defendant in this case. <i>Rohr</i> is being tried pursuant to a multi-phase trial plan. At the conclusion of the trial’s first phase, the jury determined that the decedent was a member of the <i>Engle </i>class. This determination allowed the trial to proceed to subsequent phases, and trial was ongoing as of October 20, 2010. Neither Lorillard Tobacco nor Lorillard, Inc. is a defendant in the other case in which trial was proceeding as of October 20, 2010. </div> <div align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt">     As of October 20, 2010, verdicts have been returned in 28 <i>Engle </i>Progeny Cases since the Florida Supreme Court issued its 2006 ruling that permitted members of the <i>Engle </i>class to bring individual lawsuits. Neither Lorillard Tobacco nor Lorillard, Inc. was a defendant in any of these trials. Juries awarded actual damages and punitive damages in 13 of the trials. The 13 punitive damages awards have totaled $455 million and have ranged from $270,000 to $244 million. In six of the trials, juries’ awards were limited to actual damages. In the nine remaining trials, juries found in favor of the defendants. </div> <div align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt">     As of October 20, 2010, defendants were contesting, or were expected to contest, either by appeals or by post-trial motions, each of the 19 verdicts in which plaintiffs were awarded damages. None of the 19 <i>Engle </i>Progeny trials in which plaintiffs were awarded damages since the Florida Supreme Court’s 2006 decision had reached a final resolution as of October 20, 2010. In some of the trials decided in defendants’ favor, plaintiffs have filed motions challenging the verdicts. As of October 20, 2010, none of these motions had resulted in rulings in favor of the plaintiffs. </div> <div align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt">     In a case tried prior to the Florida Supreme Court’s 2006 decision permitting members of the <i>Engle </i>class to bring individual lawsuits, one Florida court allowed the plaintiff to rely at trial on certain of the <i>Engle </i>jury’s findings. That trial resulted in a verdict for the plaintiffs in which they were awarded approximately $25 million in actual damages. Neither Lorillard Tobacco nor Lorillard, Inc. was a party to this case. In March 2010, a Florida appellate court affirmed the jury’s verdict. The court denied defendants’ petitions for rehearing in May 2010, and the defendants have satisfied the judgment by paying the damages award. </div> <div align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt">     In June 2009, Florida amended the security requirements for a stay of execution of any judgment during the pendency of appeal in <i>Engle </i>Progeny Cases. The amended statute provides for the amount of security for individual <i>Engle </i>Progeny Cases to vary within prescribed limits based on the number of adverse judgments that are pending on appeal at a given time. The required security decreases as the number of appeals increases to ensure that the total security posted or deposited does not exceed $200 million in the aggregate. This amended statute applies to all judgments entered on or after June 16, 2009 and expires on December 31, 2012. The plaintiffs in three cases have challenged the constitutionality of the amended statute. As of October 20, 2010, the courts had not issued rulings in response to those motions. </div> <div align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 12pt"><b><i>West Virginia Individual Personal Injury Cases</i></b> </div> <div align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt">     The West Virginia Individual Personal Injury Cases pending brought by individuals who allege cancer or other health effects caused by smoking cigarettes, by smoking cigars, or by using smokeless tobacco products are in a single West Virginia court. A total of 648 West Virginia Individual Personal Injury Cases are pending. Most of the pending cases have been consolidated for trial. The order that consolidated the cases for trial, among other things, also limited the consolidation to those cases that were filed by September 2000. No additional West Virginia Personal Injury Cases may be consolidated for trial with this group. </div>   </div>  <div style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif"> <div align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt">     In September 2000, there were approximately 1,250 West Virginia Personal Injury Cases, and Lorillard Tobacco was named in all but a few of them. Plaintiffs in most of the cases alleged injuries from smoking cigarettes, and the claims alleging injury from smoking cigarettes have been consolidated for a multi-phase trial (the “IPIC Cases”). Approximately 600 IPIC Cases have been dismissed in their entirety. Lorillard Tobacco has been dismissed from approximately 610 additional IPIC Cases because those plaintiffs did not submit evidence that they had smoked a Lorillard Tobacco product. These additional IPIC Cases remain pending against other cigarette manufacturers and some or all of the dismissals of Lorillard Tobacco could be contested in subsequent appeals. As of October 20, 2010, Lorillard Tobacco is a defendant in 35 of the pending IPIC Cases. Lorillard, Inc. has not been a defendant in any of the IPIC Cases. </div> <div align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt">     The court has severed from the IPIC Cases those claims alleging injury from the use of tobacco products other than cigarettes, including smokeless tobacco and cigars (the “Severed IPIC Claims”). The Severed IPIC Claims involve 29 plaintiffs. Twenty-seven of these plaintiffs have asserted both claims alleging that their injuries were caused by smoking cigarettes as well as claims alleging that their injuries were caused by using other tobacco products. The former claims will be considered during the consolidated trial of the IPIC Cases, while the latter claims are among the Severed IPIC Claims. Two plaintiffs have asserted only claims alleging that injuries were caused by using tobacco products other than cigarettes, and no part of their cases will be considered in the consolidated trial of the IPIC Cases. Lorillard Tobacco is a defendant in seven of the Severed IPIC Claims. Lorillard, Inc. is not a defendant in any of the Severed IPIC Claims. </div> <div align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt">     The court has entered a trial plan for the IPIC Cases that calls for a multi-phase trial. The first phase of that trial is scheduled to begin on March 21, 2011. During 2010, the court attempted to begin trial of the IPIC cases two separate times. In both instances, the court suspended trial due to complications that arose during jury selection. As of October 20, 2010, the Severed IPIC Claims were not subject to a trial plan. None of the Severed IPIC Claims were scheduled for trial as of October 20, 2010. Trial dates are subject to change. </div> <div align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 12pt"><b><i>Flight Attendant Cases</i></b> </div> <div align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt">     Lorillard Tobacco and three other cigarette manufacturers are the defendants in each of the pending Flight Attendant Cases. Lorillard, Inc. is not a defendant in any of these cases. These suits were filed as a result of a settlement agreement by the parties, including Lorillard Tobacco, in <i>Broin v. Philip Morris Companies</i>, <i>Inc.</i>, <i>et al. </i>(Circuit Court, Miami-Dade County, Florida, filed October 31, 1991), a class action brought on behalf of flight attendants claiming injury as a result of exposure to environmental tobacco smoke. The settlement agreement, among other things, permitted the plaintiff class members to file these individual suits. These individuals may not seek punitive damages for injuries that arose prior to January 15, 1997. The period for filing Flight Attendant Cases expired in 2000 and no additional cases in this category may be filed. </div> <div align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt">     The judges who have presided over the cases that have been tried have relied upon an order entered in October 2000 by the Circuit Court of Miami-Dade County, Florida. The October 2000 order has been construed by these judges as holding that the flight attendants are not required to prove the substantive liability elements of their claims for negligence, strict liability and breach of implied warranty in order to recover damages. The court further ruled that the trials of these suits are to address whether the plaintiffs’ alleged injuries were caused by their exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and, if so, the amount of damages to be awarded. </div> <div align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt">     Lorillard Tobacco was a defendant in each of the eight flight attendant cases in which verdicts have been returned. Defendants have prevailed in seven of the eight trials. In one of the seven cases in which a defense verdict was returned, the court granted plaintiff’s motion for a new trial and, following appeal, the case has been returned to the trial court for a second trial. The six remaining cases in which defense verdicts were returned are concluded. In the single trial decided for the plaintiff, <i>French v. Philip Morris Incorporated</i>, <i>et al.</i>, the jury awarded $5.5 million in damages. The court, however, reduced this award to $500,000. This verdict, as reduced by the trial court, was affirmed on appeal and the defendants have paid the award. Lorillard Tobacco’s share of the judgment in this matter, including interest, was approximately $60,000. </div> <div align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt">     As of October 20, 2010, none of the flight attendant cases are scheduled for trial. Trial dates are subject to change. </div>   </div>  <div style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif"> <div align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 12pt"><b><i>Class Action Cases</i></b> </div> <div align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt">     Lorillard Tobacco is a defendant in six pending Class Action Cases. Lorillard, Inc. is a co-defendant in two of these cases. In most of the pending cases, plaintiffs seek class certification on behalf of groups of cigarette smokers, or the estates of deceased cigarette smokers, who reside in the state in which the case was filed. </div> <div align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt">     Cigarette manufacturers, including Lorillard Tobacco, have defeated motions for class certification in a total of 36 cases, 13 of which were in state court and 23 of which were in federal court. Motions for class certification have also been ruled upon in some of the “lights” cases or in other class actions to which neither Lorillard Tobacco nor Lorillard, Inc. was a party. In some of these cases, courts have denied class certification to the plaintiffs, while classes have been certified in other matters. </div> <div align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt">     <b><i>The Scott Case. </i></b>In one of the class actions pending against Lorillard Tobacco, <i>Scott v. The American Tobacco Company</i>, <i>et al. </i>(District Court, Orleans Parish, Louisiana, filed May 24, 1996), the Louisiana Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, issued a decision in April 2010 (the “April 2010 Decision”) that modified the trial court’s 2008 amended final judgment. The April 2010 Decision reduced the judgment amount from approximately $264 million to approximately $242 million to fund a ten year, court-supervised smoking cessation program. The April 2010 Decision also changed the date on which the award of post-judgment interest will accrue from June 2004 to July 2008. Interest awarded by the amended final judgment will continue to accrue from July 2008 until the judgment either is paid or is reversed on appeal. As of October 20, 2010, judicial interest totaled approximately $29.7 million. Lorillard, Inc., which was a party to the case in the past, is no longer a defendant. </div> <div align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt">     In its April 2010 Decision, the Court of Appeal expressly preserved defendants’ right to assert claims on unspent or surplus funds, should any such funds be present, at the conclusion of the ten-year smoking cessation program. </div> <div align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt">     The Louisiana Supreme Court denied review of the petitions that were filed by the defendants and the plaintiffs. The U.S. Supreme Court has granted defendants’ application to stay execution of the amended final judgment until defendants’ petition for writ of certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court is timely filed and is resolved. Defendants’ petition for writ of certiorari is due to be filed by December 2, 2010. </div> <div align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt">     In 1997, <i>Scott </i>was certified a class action on behalf of certain cigarette smokers resident in the State of Louisiana who desire to participate in medical monitoring or smoking cessation programs and who began smoking prior to September 1, 1988, or who began smoking prior to May 24, 1996 and allege that defendants undermined compliance with the warnings on cigarette packages. </div> <div align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt">     Trial in <i>Scott </i>was heard in two phases. At the conclusion of the first phase in July 2003, the jury rejected medical monitoring, the primary relief requested by plaintiffs, and returned sufficient findings in favor of the class to proceed to a Phase II trial on plaintiffs’ request for a statewide smoking cessation program. Phase II of the trial, which concluded in May 2004, resulted in an award of $591 million to fund cessation programs for Louisiana smokers. </div> <div align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt">     In February 2007, the Louisiana Court of Appeal reduced the amount of the award by approximately $328 million; struck an award of prejudgment interest, which totaled approximately $440 million as of December 31, 2006; and limited class membership to individuals who began smoking by September 1, 1988, and whose claims accrued by September 1, 1988. In January 2008, the Louisiana Supreme Court denied plaintiffs’ and defendants’ separate petitions for review. In May 2008, U.S. Supreme Court denied defendants’ request that it review the case. The case was returned to the trial court, which subsequently entered an amended final judgment that ordered the defendants to pay approximately $264 million to fund the court-supervised smoking cessation program for the members of the certified class. The Court of Appeal’s April 2010 Decision was an appeal from this judgment. </div> <div align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt">     Should the amended final judgment be sustained on appeal, Lorillard Tobacco’s share of that judgment, including the award of post-judgment interest, has not been determined. In the fourth quarter of 2007, Lorillard, Inc. recorded a pretax provision of approximately $66 million for this matter which was included in selling, general and administrative expenses on the consolidated statements of income and was reclassified from other liabilities to accrued liabilities in the second quarter of 2010 on the consolidated balance sheets. </div>   </div>  <div style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif"> <div align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt">     The parties filed a stipulation in the trial court agreeing that an article of Louisiana law required that the amount of the bond for the appeal be set at $50 million for all defendants collectively. The parties further agreed that the plaintiffs have full reservations of rights to contest in the trial court the sufficiency of the bond on any grounds. Defendants collectively posted a surety bond in the amount of $50 million, of which Lorillard Tobacco secured 25%, or $12.5 million, which is classified as restricted cash within other assets on the consolidated balance sheet. While Lorillard Tobacco believes the limitation on the appeal bond amount is valid as required by Louisiana law, in the event of a successful challenge the amount of the appeal bond could be set as high as 150% of the judgment and judicial interest combined. If such an event occurred, Lorillard Tobacco’s share of the appeal bond has not been determined. </div> <div align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt">     <b><i>Other Class Action Cases. </i></b>In one Class Action Case pending against Lorillard Tobacco, <i>Brown v. The American Tobacco Company</i>, <i>Inc.</i>, <i>et al. </i>(Superior Court, San Diego County, California, filed June 10, 1997), the California Supreme Court in 2009 vacated an order that had previously decertified a class and returned <i>Brown </i>to the trial court for further activity. The trial court has informed the parties that it believes the class previously certified in <i>Brown </i>has been reinstated as a result of the California Supreme Court’s ruling. The class previously certified in <i>Brown </i>is composed of residents of California who smoked at least one of defendants’ cigarettes between June 10, 1993 and April 23, 2001 and who were exposed to defendants’ marketing and advertising activities in California. The trial court also has ruled that it will permit plaintiffs to assert claims regarding the allegedly fraudulent marketing of “light” or “ultra-light” cigarettes. Trial in <i>Brown </i>has been scheduled for May 2011. Trial dates are subject to change. Lorillard, Inc. is not a defendant in <i>Brown</i>. </div> <div align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt">     In another Class Action Case pending against Lorillard Tobacco, <i>Cleary v. Philip Morris Incorporated, et al. </i>(U.S. District Court, Northern District, Illinois, filed June 3, 1998), a court allowed plaintiffs to amend their complaint in an existing class action to assert claims on behalf of a subclass of individuals who purchased “light” cigarettes from the defendants, but it subsequently dismissed the “light” cigarettes claims asserted against Lorillard Tobacco. In June 2010, the court dismissed plaintiffs’ remaining claims, and it entered final judgment in defendants’ favor. Plaintiffs have noticed an appeal from the final judgment, including the prior ruling that dismissed plaintiffs’ “lights” claims against Lorillard Tobacco, to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. Lorillard, Inc. is not a defendant in <i>Cleary</i>. </div> <div align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt">     In 2010, Lorillard Tobacco and Lorillard, Inc., were named as defendants in <i>Calistro v. Altria Group, Inc., et al. </i>(U.S. District Court, The Virgin Islands, filed July 7, 2010), in which plaintiffs seek medical monitoring on behalf of residents of The Virgin Islands who smoke cigarettes. Plaintiffs have dismissed both Lorillard Tobacco and Lorillard, Inc. from this case. </div> <div align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt">     <b><i>“Lights” Class Action Cases. </i></b>Neither Lorillard Tobacco nor Lorillard, Inc. is a defendant in another approximately 35 Class Action Cases in which plaintiffs’ claims are based on the allegedly fraudulent marketing of “light” or “ultra-light” cigarettes. Classes have been certified in some of these cases. In one of the “lights” Class Action Cases, <i>Good v. Altria Group</i>, <i>Inc.</i>, <i>et al.</i>, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in December 2008 that neither the Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act nor the Federal Trade Commission’s regulation of cigarettes’ tar and nicotine disclosures preempts (or bars) some of plaintiffs’ claims. In 2009, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation consolidated various federal court “lights” Class Action Cases pending against Philip Morris USA or Altria Group and transferred those cases to the U.S. District Court of Maine. As of October 20, 2010, 15 cases were part of that consolidated proceeding. </div> <div align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt">     <b><i>The Schwab Case. </i></b>Lorillard Tobacco was a defendant in <i>Schwab v. Philip Morris USA, Inc., et al. </i>(U.S. District Court, Eastern District, New York, filed May 11, 2004). Plaintiffs in <i>Schwab</i> based their claims on defendants’ alleged violations of the RICO statute in the manufacture, marketing and sale of “light” cigarettes. Plaintiffs estimated damages to the class in the hundreds of billions of dollars. Any damages awarded to the plaintiffs based on defendants’ violation of the RICO statute would have been trebled. In September 2006, the court granted plaintiffs’ motion for class certification and certified a nationwide class action on behalf of purchasers of “light” cigarettes. In March 2008, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the class certification order and ruled that the case may not proceed as a class action. In July 2010, the parties submitted to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York a stipulation of dismissal with prejudice, which concluded activity in <i>Schwab</i>. </div>   </div>  <div style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif"> <div align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 12pt"><b><i>Reimbursement Cases</i></b> </div> <div align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt">     Lorillard Tobacco is a defendant in the four Reimbursement Cases that are pending in the U.S. and it has been named as a party to a case in Israel. Lorillard, Inc. is a co-defendant in two of the four cases pending in the U.S. Plaintiffs in the case in Israel have attempted to assert claims against Lorillard, Inc. In one of the pending Reimbursement Cases, <i>City of St. Louis [Missouri] v. American Tobacco Co., Inc., et al. </i>(Circuit Court, City of St. Louis, Missouri, filed November 25, 1998), trial has been scheduled to begin in January 2011. Trial dates are subject to change. Lorillard Tobacco and Lorillard, Inc. are defendants in <i>City of St. Louis.</i> Plaintiffs are suing on behalf of approximately 40 Missouri hospitals. </div> <div align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt">     <b><i>U.S. Government Case. </i></b>In August 2006, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia issued its final judgment and remedial order in the federal government’s reimbursement suit, <i>United States of America v. Philip Morris USA</i>, <i>Inc.</i>, <i>et al</i>., (U.S. District Court, District of Columbia, filed September 22, 1999). The final judgment and remedial order concluded a bench trial that began in September 2004. Lorillard Tobacco, other cigarette manufacturers, two parent companies and two trade associations were defendants in this action during trial. Lorillard, Inc. is not a party to this case. </div> <div align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt">     In its 2006 final judgment and remedial order, the court determined that the defendants, including Lorillard Tobacco, violated certain provisions of the RICO statute, that there was a likelihood of present and future RICO violations, and that equitable relief was warranted. The government was not awarded monetary damages. The equitable relief included permanent injunctions that prohibit the defendants, including Lorillard Tobacco, from engaging in any act of racketeering, as defined under RICO; from making any material false or deceptive statements concerning cigarettes; from making any express or implied statement about health on cigarette packaging or promotional materials (these prohibitions include a ban on using such descriptors as “low tar,” “light,” “ultra-light,” “mild” or “natural”); from making any statements that “low tar,” “light,” “ultra-light,” “mild” or “natural” or low-nicotine cigarettes may result in a reduced risk of disease; and from participating in the management or control of certain entities or their successors. The final judgment and remedial order also requires the defendants, including Lorillard Tobacco, to make corrective statements on their websites, in certain media, in point-of-sale advertisements, and on cigarette package “inserts” concerning: the health effects of smoking; the addictiveness of smoking; that there are no significant health benefits to be gained by smoking “low tar,” “light,” “ultra-light,” “mild” or “natural” cigarettes; that cigarette design has been manipulated to ensure optimum nicotine delivery to smokers; and that there are adverse effects from exposure to secondhand smoke. Lorillard Tobacco could incur costs in excess of $10 million to implement the final judgment and remedial order. The final judgment and remedial order also requires defendants, including Lorillard Tobacco, to make disclosures of disaggregated marketing data to the government, and to make document disclosures on a website and in a physical depository. The final judgment and remedial order prohibits each defendant that manufactures cigarettes, including Lorillard Tobacco, from selling any of its cigarette brands or certain elements of its business unless certain conditions are met. </div> <div align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt">     The final judgment and remedial order has not yet been fully implemented. Following trial, the final judgment and remedial order was stayed because the defendants, the government and several intervenors noticed appeals to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. In May 2009, a three judge panel upheld substantially all of the District Court’s final judgment and remedial order. In September 2009, the Court of Appeals denied defendants’ rehearing petitions as well as their motion to vacate those statements in the appellate ruling that address defendants’ marketing of “low tar” or “lights” cigarettes, to vacate those parts of the trial court’s judgment on that issue, and to remand the case with instructions to deny as moot the government’s allegations and requested relief regarding “lights” cigarettes. The Court of Appeals stayed its order that formally relinquished jurisdiction of defendants’ appeal pending the disposition of the petitions for writ of certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court that were noticed by the defendants, the government and the intervenors. In June 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court denied all of the petitions for writ of certiorari. The case has been returned to the trial court for implementation of the Court of Appeals’ directions in its 2009 ruling and for entry of an amended final judgment. </div> <div align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt">     While trial was underway, the Court of Appeals ruled that plaintiff may not seek to recover profits earned by the defendants. Prior to trial, the government had claimed that it was entitled to approximately $280 billion from the defendants for its claim to recover profits earned by the defendants. The U.S. Supreme Court declined to address the decisions dismissing recovery of profits when it denied review of the government’s and the intervenors’ petitions. </div>   </div>  <div style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif"> <div align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt">     <b><i>Settlement of State Reimbursement Litigation. </i></b>On November 23, 1998, Lorillard Tobacco, Philip Morris Incorporated, Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corporation and R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company (the “Original Participating Manufacturers”) entered into the Master Settlement Agreement (“MSA”) with 46 states, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands, American Samoa and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands to settle the asserted and unasserted health care cost recovery and certain other claims of those states. These settling entities are generally referred to as the “Settling States.” The Original Participating Manufacturers had previously settled similar claims brought by Mississippi, Florida, Texas and Minnesota, which together with the MSA are referred to as the “State Settlement Agreements.” </div> <div align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt">     The State Settlement Agreements provide that the agreements are not admissions, concessions or evidence of any liability or wrongdoing on the part of any party, and were entered into by the Original Participating Manufacturers to avoid the further expense, inconvenience, burden and uncertainty of litigation. Lorillard recorded pretax charges for its obligations under the State Settlement Agreements of $324 million and $911 million for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2010, respectively, and $294 million and $848 million for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2009, respectively. Lorillard’s portion of ongoing adjusted settlement payments and legal fees is based on its share of domestic cigarette shipments in the year preceding that in which the payment is due. Accordingly, Lorillard records its portions of ongoing adjusted settlement payments as part of cost of manufactured products sold as the related sales occur. </div> <div align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt">     The State Settlement Agreements require that the domestic tobacco industry make annual payments of $10.4 billion, subject to adjustment for several factors, including inflation, market share and industry volume. In addition, the domestic tobacco industry is required to pay settling plaintiffs’ attorneys’ fees, subject to an annual cap of $500 million, as well as an additional amount of up to $125 million in each year through 2008. These payment obligations are the several and not joint obligations of each settling defendant. The State Settlement Agreements also include provisions relating to significant advertising and marketing restrictions, public disclosure of certain industry documents, limitations on challenges to tobacco control and underage use laws, and other provisions. </div> <div align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt">     Lorillard Tobacco and the other Original Participating Manufacturers have notified the States that they intend to seek an adjustment in the amount of payments made in 2003 and subsequent years pursuant to a provision in the MSA that permits such adjustment if the companies can prove that the MSA was a significant factor in their loss of market share to companies not participating in the MSA and that the States failed to diligently enforce certain statutes passed in connection with the MSA. If the Original Participating Manufacturers are ultimately successful, any adjustment would be reflected as a credit against future payments by the Original Participating Manufacturers under the agreement. </div> <div align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt">     From time to time, lawsuits have been brought against Lorillard Tobacco and other participating manufacturers to the MSA, or against one or more of the states, challenging the validity of the MSA on certain grounds, including as a violation of the antitrust laws. See “MSA-Related Antitrust Suit” below. </div> <div align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt">     In addition, in connection with the MSA, the Original Participating Manufacturers entered into an agreement to establish a $5.2 billion trust fund payable between 1999 and 2010 to compensate the tobacco growing communities in 14 states (the “Trust”). Payments to the Trust ended in 2005 as a result of an assessment imposed under a federal law, enacted in 2004, repealing the federal supply management program for tobacco growers. Under the law, tobacco quota holders and growers will be compensated with payments totaling $10.1 billion, funded by an assessment on tobacco manufacturers and importers. Payments under the law to qualifying tobacco quota holders and growers commenced in 2005. </div> <div align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt">     Lorillard believes that the State Settlement Agreements will materially adversely affect its cash flows and operating income in future years. The degree of the adverse impact will depend, among other things, on the rates of decline in domestic cigarette sales in the premium price and discount price segments, Lorillard’s share of the domestic premium price and discount price cigarette segments, and the effect of any resulting cost advantage of manufacturers not subject to significant payment obligations under the State Settlement Agreements. </div>   </div>  <div style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif"> <div align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 12pt"><b><i>Filter Cases</i></b> </div> <div align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt">     In addition to the above, claims have been brought against Lorillard Tobacco and Lorillard, Inc. by individuals who seek damages resulting from their alleged exposure to asbestos fibers that were incorporated into filter material used in one brand of cigarettes manufactured by Lorillard Tobacco for a limited period of time ending more than 50 years ago. Lorillard Tobacco is a defendant in 33 Filter Cases. Lorillard, Inc. is a defendant in three Filter Cases, including two that also name Lorillard Tobacco. Since January 1, 2008, Lorillard Tobacco has paid, or has reached agreement to pay, a total of approximately $20.4 million in settlements to finally resolve approximately 90 claims. The related expense was recorded in selling, general and administrative expenses on the consolidated statements of income. Since January 1, 2008, verdicts have been returned in two Filter Cases. In September 2008, a jury in the District Court of Bexar County, Texas, returned a verdict for Lorillard Tobacco in <i>Young v. Lorillard Tobacco Company</i>. Plaintiffs in the <i>Young </i>case did not pursue an appeal and that matter is concluded. In January 2010, a jury in the Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County, returned a verdict for Lorillard Tobacco in <i>Cox v. Asbestos Corporation, Ltd., et al. </i>Plaintiffs in the <i>Cox </i>case voluntarily dismissed Lorillard Tobacco from their appeal to the California Court of Appeals and the matter is concluded. As of October 20, 2010, nine Filter Cases were scheduled for trial. Trial dates are subject to change. </div> <div align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 12pt"><b>Tobacco-Related Antitrust Cases</b> </div> <div align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt"><b><i>Indirect Purchaser Suits</i></b> </div> <div align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt">     Approximately 30 antitrust suits were filed in 2000 and 2001 on behalf of putative classes of consumers in various state courts against cigarette manufacturers. The suits all alleged that the defendants entered into agreements to fix the wholesale prices of cigarettes in violation of state antitrust laws which permit indirect purchasers, such as retailers and consumers, to sue under price fixing or consumer fraud statutes. More than 20 states permit such suits. Lorillard Tobacco was a defendant in all but one of these indirect purchaser cases. Lorillard, Inc. was not named as a defendant in any of these cases. Three indirect purchaser suits, in New York, Florida and Michigan, thereafter were dismissed by courts in those states, and the plaintiffs withdrew their appeals. The actions in all other states, except for New Mexico and Kansas, were voluntarily dismissed. The New Mexico suit was thereafter dismissed as to Lorillard Tobacco, and subsequently dismissed as to all defendants. </div> <div align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt">     In the Kansas case, the District Court of Seward County certified a class of Kansas indirect purchasers in 2002. In July 2006, the Court issued an order confirming that fact discovery was closed, with the exception of privilege issues that the Court determined, based on a Special Master’s report, justified further fact discovery. In October 2007, the Court denied all of the defendants’ privilege claims, and the Kansas Supreme Court thereafter denied a petition seeking to overturn that ruling. Discovery currently is ongoing. As of October 20, 2010, the Court has not set dates for dispositive motions and trial. </div> <div align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 12pt"><b><i>MSA-Related Antitrust Suit</i></b> </div> <div align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt">     In October 2008, Lorillard Tobacco was named as a defendant in an action filed in the Western District of Kentucky, <i>Vibo Corporation, Inc. d/b/a/ General Tobacco v. Conway, et al</i>. The suit alleges that the named defendants, which include 52 state and territorial attorneys general and 19 tobacco manufacturers, violated the federal Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890 (the “Sherman Act”) by entering into and participating in the MSA. The plaintiff alleges that MSA participants, such as itself, that were not in existence when the MSA was executed in 1998 but subsequently became participants, are unlawfully required to pay significantly more sums to the states than companies that joined the MSA within 90 days after its execution. In addition to the Sherman Act claim, plaintiff has raised a number of constitutional claims against the states. Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment in its favor on all claims, an injunction against the continued enforcement of the MSA, treble damages against the tobacco manufacturer defendants, including Lorillard Tobacco, and damages and injunctive relief against the states, including contract recession and restitution. In December 2008, the court dismissed the complaint against all defendants, including Lorillard Tobacco. The court entered its final judgment dismissing the suit in January 2010. Thereafter, the plaintiff filed a notice of appeal to the federal Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. As of October 20, 2010, no other filings have been made. </div>   </div>  <div style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif"> <div align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 12pt"><b>Defenses</b> </div> <div align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt">     Each of Lorillard Tobacco and Lorillard, Inc. believes that it has valid defenses to the cases pending against it as well as valid bases for appeal should any adverse verdicts be returned against either of them. While Lorillard Tobacco and Lorillard, Inc. intend to defend vigorously all tobacco products liability litigation, it is not possible to predict the outcome of any of this litigation. Litigation is subject to many uncertainties. Plaintiffs have prevailed in several cases, as noted above. It is possible that one or more of the pending actions could be decided unfavorably as to Lorillard Tobacco, Lorillard, Inc. or the other defendants. Lorillard Tobacco and Lorillard, Inc. may enter into discussions in an attempt to settle particular cases if either believe it is appropriate to do so. </div> <div align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt">     Neither Lorillard Tobacco nor Lorillard, Inc. can predict the outcome of pending litigation. Some plaintiffs have been awarded damages from cigarette manufacturers at trial. While some of these awards have been overturned or reduced, other damages awards have been paid after the manufacturers have exhausted their appeals. These awards and other litigation activities against cigarette manufacturers continue to receive media attention. In addition, health issues related to tobacco products also continue to receive media attention. It is possible, for example, that the 2006 verdict in <i>United States of America v. Philip Morris USA, Inc.</i>, <i>et al.</i>, which made many adverse findings regarding the conduct of the defendants, including Lorillard Tobacco, could form the basis of allegations by other plaintiffs or additional judicial findings against cigarette manufacturers. In addition, the ruling in <i>Good v. Altria Group, Inc., et al. </i>could result in further “lights” litigation. Any such developments could have an adverse effect on the ability of Lorillard Tobacco or Lorillard, Inc. to prevail in smoking and health litigation and could influence the filing of new suits against Lorillard Tobacco or Lorillard, Inc. Lorillard Tobacco and Lorillard, Inc. also cannot predict the type or extent of litigation that could be brought against either of them, or against other cigarette manufacturers, in the future. </div> <div align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt">     Lorillard records provisions in the consolidated financial statements for pending litigation when it determines that an unfavorable outcome is probable and the amount of loss can be reasonably estimated. Except for the impact of the State Settlement Agreements and <i>Scott </i>as described above, management is unable to make a meaningful estimate of the amount or range of loss that could result from an unfavorable outcome of material pending litigation and, therefore, no material provision has been made in the consolidated financial statements for any unfavorable outcome. It is possible that Lorillard’s results of operations or cash flows in a particular quarterly or annual period or its financial position could be materially adversely affected by an unfavorable outcome or settlement of certain pending litigation. </div> <div align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 12pt"><b>Indemnification Obligations</b> </div> <div align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt">     In connection with the Separation, Lorillard entered into a separation agreement with Loews (the “Separation Agreement”) and agreed to indemnify Loews and its officers, directors, employees and agents against all costs and expenses arising out of third party claims (including, without limitation, attorneys’ fees, interest, penalties and costs of investigation or preparation for defense), judgments, fines, losses, claims, damages, liabilities, taxes, demands, assessments and amounts paid in settlement based on, arising out of or resulting from, among other things, Loews’ ownership of or the operation of Lorillard and its assets and properties, and its operation or conduct of its businesses at any time prior to or following the Separation (including with respect to any product liability claims). </div> <div align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt">     Loews is a defendant in three pending product liability cases. One of these is a Reimbursement Case in Israel and two are purported Class Action Cases on file in U.S. courts. Lorillard Tobacco also is a defendant in each of the three product liability cases in which Loews is involved. Pursuant to the Separation Agreement, Lorillard is required to indemnify Loews for the amount of any losses and any legal or other fees with respect to such cases. </div> <div align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 12pt"><b>Other Litigation</b> </div> <div align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt">     Lorillard is also party to other litigation arising in the ordinary course of business. The outcome of this other litigation will not, in the opinion of management, materially affect Lorillard’s results of operations or equity. </div> </div>  <!-- Begin Block Tagged Note false false false us-types:textBlockItemType textblock Includes disclosure of commitments and contingencies. This element may be used as a single block of text to encapsulate the entire disclosure including data and tables. Reference 1: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name FASB Interpretation (FIN) -Number 14 -Paragraph 3 Reference 2: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Statement of Financial Accounting Standard (FAS) -Number 5 -Paragraph 9, 10, 11, 12 false 1 2 false UnKnown UnKnown UnKnown false true