Legal Proceedings

12 Months Ended

Dec. 31, 2011

Commitments and Legal Proceedings [Abstract]

Legal Proceedings

19. Legal Proceedings

Overview

As of February 9, 2012, 9,492 product liability cases are pending against cigarette manufacturers in the United States. Lorillard Tobacco is a defendant in 8,562 of these cases. Lorillard, Inc. is a co-defendant in 683 pending cases. A total of 5,900 of these lawsuits are Engle Progeny Cases, described below. 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.

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.

Type of Case	Total Number of Cases Pending against Lorillard as of February 9, 2012
Conventional Product Liability Cases	33
Engle Progeny Cases	5,900
West Virginia Individual Personal Injury Cases	38
Flight Attendant Cases	2,586
Class Action Cases	4
Reimbursement Cases	1
Filter Cases	43
Tobacco-Related Antitrust Cases	2

Conventional Product Liability Cases. 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 five of the Conventional Product Liability cases.

Engle Progeny Cases. Engle Progeny Cases are brought by individuals who purport to be members of the decertified Engle class. These cases are pending in a number of Florida courts. Lorillard Tobacco is a defendant in each of the Engle Progeny Cases listed in the above table and Lorillard, Inc. is a co-defendant in 676 Engle Progeny Cases. The time period for filing Engle Progeny Cases expired in January 2008 and no additional cases may be filed. Some of the Engle Progeny Cases were filed on behalf of multiple class members. Some of the courts hearing the cases filed by multiple class members have severed these suits into separate individual cases. It is possible the remaining suits filed by multiple class members may also be severed into separate individual cases.

West Virginia Individual Personal Injury Cases. 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.

Flight Attendant Cases. 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.

Class Action Cases. 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 25 “lights” Class Action Cases and two Class Action Cases that are based primarily on medical monitoring.

Reimbursement Cases. 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.

Included in this category is the suit filed by the federal government, United States of America v. Philip Morris USA, Inc. (“Phillip Morris”), et al., 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.

Filter Cases. 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 42 of the 43 Filter Cases listed in the above table. Lorillard, Inc. is a co-defendant in one of the 43 Filter Cases that is pending against Lorillard Tobacco. Lorillard, Inc. is also a defendant in one additional Filter Case in which Lorillard Tobacco is not a defendant. In January 2012, a jury returned a verdict for the defendants in the case of McGuire v. Lorillard Tobacco Company and Hollingsworth & Vose Company (Circuit Court, Division Four, Jefferson County, Kentucky).

Tobacco-Related Antitrust Cases. Lorillard Tobacco is a defendant in two Tobacco-Related Antitrust Cases as set forth in the table above. Lorillard, Inc. is not a defendant in either case. In 2000 and 2001, a number of cases were brought against cigarette manufacturers, including Lorillard Tobacco, alleging that defendants conspired to set the price of cigarettes in violation of federal and state antitrust and unfair business practices statutes. Plaintiffs sought class certification on behalf of persons who purchased cigarettes directly or indirectly from one or more of the defendant cigarette manufacturers. All of the cases were either successfully defended or voluntarily dismissed, save one that is being defended in state court in Kansas. The other case in this category was brought by a small cigarette manufacturer against a number of states and the cigarette manufacturers, including Lorillard Tobacco, that signed the Master Settlement Agreement (as described herein) 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. It alleges that certain provisions of the Master Settlement Agreement violate the antitrust laws. As of February 9, 2012, this case had been dismissed and was on appeal by plaintiff before the Federal Circuit Court for the Sixth Circuit.

Loss Accrual and Disclosure Policy

Lorillard establishes accruals in accordance with Accounting Standards Codification Topic 450, Contingencies (“ASC 450”), when a material litigation liability is both probable and can be reasonably estimated. There are a number of factors impacting Lorillard’s ability to estimate the possible loss or a range of loss, including the specific facts of each matter; the legal theories proffered by plaintiffs and legal defenses available to Lorillard Tobacco and Lorillard, Inc.; the wide-ranging outcomes reached in similar cases; differing procedural and substantive laws in the various jurisdictions in which lawsuits have been filed, including whether punitive damages may be pursued or are permissible; the degree of specificity in a plaintiff’s complaint; the history of the case and whether discovery has been completed; plaintiffs’ history of use of Lorillard Tobacco’s cigarettes relative to those of the other defendants; the attribution of damages, if any, among multiple defendants; the application of contributory and/or comparative negligence to the allocation of damage awards among plaintiffs and defendants; the likelihood of settlements for de minimus amounts prior to trial; the likelihood of success at trial; the likelihood of success on appeal; and the impact of current and pending state and federal appellate decisions. It has been Lorillard’s experience and is its continued expectation that the above complexities and uncertainties will not be clarified until the late stages of litigation. For those reasonably possible loss contingencies for which an estimate of the possible loss or range of loss cannot be made, Lorillard discloses the nature of the litigation and any developments as appropriate.

Lorillard monitors the status of all outstanding litigation on an ongoing basis in order to determine the probability of loss and assess whether an estimate of the possible loss or range of loss can be determined. In evaluating litigation, Lorillard considers, among other things, the nature of the claims; the jurisdiction in which the claims have been filed and the law and case law developed in that jurisdiction; the experience of plaintiffs’ counsel in this type of litigation; the parties’ respective litigation strategies; the stage of the proceedings; the outcome of the matters at trial or on appeal; the type and amount of damages claimed by plaintiffs; the outcomes and damage awards, if any, for similar matters brought against Lorillard and/or the tobacco industry; and the possibility and likelihood of success on appeal. Lorillard’s assessment of a possible loss or range of loss is based on its assessment of the final outcome of the litigation upon the conclusion of all appeals.

Lorillard records provisions in the consolidated financial statements for pending litigation when it determines that it is probable that a loss has been incurred and the amount of loss can be reasonably estimated. Except for the impact of the State Settlement Agreements as described above, while it is reasonably possible that a loss has been incurred, (i) management has concluded that it is not probable that a loss has been incurred in any material pending litigation against Lorillard, (ii) management is unable to estimate the possible loss or range of loss that could result from an unfavorable outcome in any material pending litigation due to the many variables, uncertainties and complexities described above, and (iii) accordingly, management has not provided any amounts in the consolidated financial statements for possible losses related to material pending litigation. 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 or future litigation or an inability to secure bonds where required to stay the execution of judgments on appeal.

Tobacco-Related Product Liability Litigation

Conventional Product Liability Cases

Since January 1, 2010, verdicts have been returned in seven Conventional Product Liability Cases against cigarette manufacturers. Lorillard Tobacco was the only defendant in one of these seven trials, Evans v. Lorillard Tobacco Company (Superior Court, Suffolk County, Massachusetts). In December 2010, the jury in Evans awarded $50 million in compensatory damages to the estate of a deceased smoker, $21 million in damages to the deceased smoker’s son, and $81 million in punitive damages. In September 2011, the court granted in part Lorillard Tobacco’s motion to reduce the jury’s damages awards and reduced the verdicts to the deceased smoker to $25 million and to the deceased smoker’s son to $10 million. The court did not reduce the punitive damages verdict, and it denied the other motions Lorillard Tobacco filed following trial that contested the jury’s verdict. In September 2011, the court also issued an order that addressed the single claim that was not submitted to the jury. While the court made certain findings that were favorable to the plaintiffs, it did not award additional damages to the plaintiffs on this final claim. The court has denied the various motions filed by Lorillard Tobacco following the entry of the order on the claim that was not submitted to the jury. In September 2011, the court entered a judgment that reflected the jury’s damages awards and the court’s reductions following trial. The judgment awarded plaintiffs interest on each of the three damages awards at the rate of 12% per year from the date the case was filed in 2004. Interest on the three awards will continue to accrue until either the judgment is paid or is vacated on appeal. The judgment permitted plaintiff’s counsel to request an award of attorneys’ fees and costs. In November 2011, the court granted in part plaintiff’s counsel’s application for attorneys’ fees and costs and has awarded approximately $2.4 million in fees and approximately $225,000 in costs. The court entered a final judgment that incorporated the amounts of the verdicts, as reduced by the trial court, the awards of interest, and the awards of attorneys’ fees and costs. Lorillard Tobacco has noticed an appeal from the final judgment to the Massachusetts Appeals Court. As of February 9, 2012, the court had not ruled on plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction.

Neither Lorillard Tobacco nor Lorillard, Inc. was a defendant in the six other trials since January 1, 2010. Juries found in favor of the plaintiffs and awarded compensatory damages in two of these trials. Plaintiff in one of the two cases was awarded $4.0 million in punitive damages. Defendants’ appeals of these verdicts are pending. Juries found in favor of the defendants in the four remaining trials. Two of these four cases have concluded because the plaintiffs did not pursue appeals. Plaintiff in the third case has noticed an appeal, while the opportunity for the plaintiff in the fourth case to challenge the verdict had not expired as of February 9, 2012.

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 twelve 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.

As of February 9, 2012, trial was underway in one Conventional Product Liability Case, the case of Schwarz v. Philip Morris USA (Circuit Court, Multnomah County, Oregon). Neither Lorillard Tobacco nor Lorillard, Inc. is a defendant in Schwarz. Some additional cases are scheduled for trial in 2012. As of February 9, 2012, Lorillard Tobacco is a defendant in one of the Conventional Product Liability Cases that is scheduled for trial in 2012. Lorillard, Inc. is not a defendant in this case. Trial dates are subject to change.

Engle Progeny Cases

In 2006, the Florida Supreme Court issued a ruling in Engle v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., et al., 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 compensatory 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 compensatory damages awards to two of the three individuals whose claims were heard during the first phase of the Engle 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.

The Florida Supreme Court’s 2006 ruling also permitted Engle 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 Engle trial. The time period for filing Engle 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.

The pending Engle Progeny Cases are before various Florida state and federal courts. Some of the Engle 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 Engle 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.

Various Engle Progeny Cases have been dismissed. Beginning in 2010 and through February 9, 2012, the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida entered orders that dismissed approximately 1,200 cases for various reasons. In some instances, the plaintiffs whose cases were dismissed also were pursuing cases pending in other courts. In other instances, the attorneys who represented the plaintiffs asked the court to enter dismissal orders because they were no longer able to contact their clients. In addition, other courts, including state courts, entered orders dismissing additional cases. The United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida also entered other orders in 2011 that addressed approximately 500 cases filed by family members of alleged former class members. These 500 cases were among the 4,400 cases that were severed into separate lawsuits in 2009. In the 2011 orders, the court combined each one of these approximately 500 cases with the cases filed by the smoker from which the family members’ claims purportedly derived.

Various courts have issued rulings that address whether plaintiffs in the Engle Progeny Cases are entitled to rely on a number of the jury’s findings in favor of the plaintiffs in the first phase of the Engle trial. One intermediate Florida appellate court, the First District Court of Appeal, has affirmed the judgments entered in favor of plaintiffs in six cases. In December 2010, this court ruled that the trial court correctly construed the Florida Supreme Court’s 2006 decision and that it properly instructed the jury on the preclusive effect of certain of the Engle jury’s findings in an appeal from a verdict in which the plaintiff was awarded damages. The same intermediate appellate court issued orders in 2011 that affirmed three other verdicts in which the plaintiffs were awarded damages. In July 2011, the Florida Supreme Court declined to review these four cases, including the appellate decision concerning the preclusive effect of the Engle jury’s findings. The defendants have petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to review these four cases. As of February 9, 2012, the U.S. Supreme Court had not determined whether it would grant review of these four applications. In January 2012, the Florida First District Court of Appeal entered orders that affirmed the judgments entered in favor of the plaintiffs in two cases. A second intermediate state appellate court, the Fourth District Court of Appeal, affirmed another case in which the plaintiff was awarded damages, but it had a different interpretation of the effect of the 2006 decision on plaintiffs’ claims. The defendant in that case has petitioned the Florida Supreme Court to review this decision. As of February 9, 2012, the Florida Supreme Court had not announced whether it would grant review of this petition.

Cigarette manufacturers, including Lorillard Tobacco, asked the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida to certify for appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit an order that addressed the application of the Florida Supreme Court’s Engle ruling on plaintiffs’ claims. The order that prompted defendants’ application addressed whether the Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution permits use of the Engle jury’s Phase I findings to establish the wrongful conduct elements of plaintiffs’ claims. Defendants acknowledged that the district court is bound by two rulings issued by Florida intermediate courts of appeal, but contended that these two decisions are inconsistent with federal due process. During February 2012, the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida denied defendants’ motion to certify the order for appellate review.

Various courts, including appellate courts, have issued rulings that have addressed the conduct of the cases prior to trial. One intermediate state appellate court ruled in 2011 that plaintiffs are permitted to assert a claim against a cigarette manufacturer even if the smoker did not smoke a brand sold by that manufacturer. This ruling may limit the ability of the defendants, including Lorillard Tobacco and Lorillard, Inc., from being dismissed from cases in which smokers did not use a cigarette manufactured by Lorillard Tobacco. Defendants have petitioned the Florida Supreme Court to review this ruling. As of February 9, 2012, the Florida Supreme Court had not announced whether it would grant review of this petition.

Lorillard Tobacco and Lorillard, Inc. are defendants in Engle Progeny Cases that have been placed on courts’ 2012 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 in 2012. It also is not possible to predict whether some courts will implement procedures that consolidate multiple Engle Progeny Cases for trial.

As of February 9, 2012, trial was underway in two Engle Progeny cases in which Lorillard Tobacco is a defendant, the cases of Alexander v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, et al. (Circuit Court, Eleventh Judicial Circuit, Miami-Dade County, Florida) and Kaplan v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, et al. (Circuit Court, Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County, Florida). Lorillard, Inc. is not a defendant in either of these trials.

As of February 9, 2012, verdicts had been returned in seven Engle Progeny Cases in which Lorillard Tobacco was a defendant. Lorillard, Inc. was not a defendant in any of these seven cases. Juries awarded compensatory damages to the plaintiffs in five of these cases. In one of the five cases in which juries awarded compensatory damages, plaintiffs were awarded punitive damages from Lorillard Tobacco. In a sixth case, the court entered an order following trial that awarded plaintiff compensatory damages. The seven cases are listed below in the order in which the verdicts were returned:

• In Rohr v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, et al. (Circuit Court, Broward County, Florida), a jury returned a verdict in favor of the defendants, including Lorillard Tobacco. Plaintiff in Rohr did not pursue an appeal and the case is concluded.

• In Mrozek v. Lorillard Tobacco Company (Circuit Court, Fourth Judicial Circuit, Duval County, Florida), the jury awarded plaintiffs a total of $6 million in compensatory damages and $11.3 million in punitive damages. The jury apportioned 35% of the fault for the smoker’s injuries to the smoker and 65% to Lorillard Tobacco. The final judgment entered by the trial court reflected the jury’s verdict and awarded plaintiff $3,900,588 in compensatory damages and $11,300,000 in punitive damages plus 6% annual interest. Lorillard Tobacco has noticed an appeal to the Florida First District Court of Appeal. As of February 9, 2012, the trial court had not ruled on plaintiff’s motion for costs and attorneys’ fees.

• In Tullo v. R.J. Reynolds, et al. (Circuit Court, Palm Beach County, Florida), the jury awarded plaintiff a total of $4.5 million in compensatory damages. The jury assessed 45% of the fault to the smoker, 5% to Lorillard Tobacco and 50% to other defendants. The jury did not award punitive damages to the plaintiff. The court entered a final judgment that awarded plaintiff $225,000 in compensatory damages from Lorillard Tobacco plus 6% annual interest. Defendants noticed an appeal from the final judgment to the Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal. The trial court has granted plaintiff’s application for costs but it has not awarded an amount. As of February 9, 2012, the trial court had not ruled on plaintiff’s motion for costs.

• In Sulcer v. Lorillard Tobacco Company, et al. (Circuit Court, Escambia County, Florida), the jury awarded $225,000 in compensatory damages to the plaintiff and it assessed 95% of the fault for the smoker’s injuries to the smoker with 5% allocated to Lorillard Tobacco. The jury returned a verdict for Lorillard Tobacco as to whether plaintiff is entitled to punitive damages. The court entered a final judgment that incorporated the jury’s determination of the parties’ fault and awarded plaintiff $11,250 in compensatory damages. Lorillard Tobacco paid approximately $246,000 to resolve the verdict, costs and fees, as well as all post-trial motions and any potential appeal by the plaintiff. Following this payment, Sulcer was concluded.

• In Jewett v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., et al. (Circuit Court, Duval County, Florida), the jury awarded the estate of the decedent $692,981 in compensatory damages and awarded the plaintiff $400,000 for loss of companionship. The jury assessed 70% of the responsibility for the decedent’s injuries to the decedent, 20% to R.J. Reynolds and 10% to Lorillard Tobacco. The jury returned a verdict for the defendants regarding whether punitive damages were warranted. The final judgment entered by the trial court reflected the jury’s verdict and awarded plaintiff a total of $109,298 from Lorillard Tobacco plus 6% annual interest. Defendants have noticed an appeal from the final judgment to the Florida First District Court of Appeal. As of February 9, 2012, the trial court had not ruled on plaintiff’s motion for costs and attorneys’ fees.

• In Weingart v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, et al. (Circuit Court, Palm Beach County, Florida), the jury determined that the decedent did not sustain any compensatory damages from the defendants, including Lorillard Tobacco, and it returned a verdict for the defendants that punitive damages were not warranted. The jury assessed 91% of the fault for the decedent’s injuries to the decedent, 3% to Lorillard Tobacco and 3% to each of the other two defendants. Following trial, the court granted in part a motion filed by the plaintiff to award damages and it tentatively awarded plaintiff $150,000 in compensatory damages. The court entered a final judgment that applied the jury’s comparative fault determinations to the court’s award of compensatory damages. The final judgment awarded plaintiff $4,500 from Lorillard Tobacco. Defendants have noticed an appeal to the Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal from the order that awarded compensatory damages to the plaintiff and have amended their notice of appeal to address the final judgment. As of February 9, 2012, the trial court had not ruled on plaintiff’s motion for costs and attorneys’ fees.

• In Sury v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, et al., (Circuit Court, Duval County, Florida), the jury awarded plaintiff $1,000,000 in compensatory damages and assessed 60% of the responsibility for the decedent’s injuries to the decedent, 20% to Lorillard Tobacco and 20% to R.J. Reynolds. The jury returned a verdict for the defendants regarding whether punitive damages were warranted. As of February 9, 2012, the court has not yet entered a final judgment and had not ruled on defendants’ motion to set aside the verdict.

As of February 9, 2012, trial was underway in two Engle Progeny cases in which neither Lorillard Tobacco nor Lorillard, Inc. was a defendant, the cases of Gollihue v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, et al. (U.S. District Court, Middle District, Florida) and Morse v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company (Circuit Court, Eighteenth Judicial Circuit, Brevard County, Florida).

As of February 9, 2012, verdicts have been returned in 50 Engle Progeny Cases since the Florida Supreme Court issued its 2006 ruling that permitted members of the Engle class to bring individual lawsuits in which neither Lorillard Tobacco nor Lorillard, Inc. was a defendant at trial. Juries awarded compensatory damages and punitive damages in 20 of the trials. The 20 punitive damages awards have totaled approximately $600 million and have ranged from $50,000 to $244 million. In 12 of the trials, juries’ awards were limited to compensatory damages. In the 18 remaining trials, juries found in favor of the defendants.

With the exception of the Sulcer case discussed above, defendants had filed, or were expected to file, challenges to each of the verdicts in which plaintiffs were awarded damages as of February 9, 2012. These challenges were pending before various courts and were in various stages as of February 9, 2012. In some of the trials decided in defendants’ favor, plaintiffs have filed motions challenging the verdicts. As of February 9, 2012, none of these motions had resulted in rulings in favor of the plaintiffs.

In a case tried prior to the Florida Supreme Court’s 2006 decision permitting members of the Engle class to bring individual lawsuits, one Florida court allowed the plaintiff to rely at trial on certain of the Engle jury’s findings. That trial resulted in a verdict for the plaintiffs in which they were awarded approximately $25 million in compensatory 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.

In June 2009, Florida amended the security requirements for a stay of execution of any judgment during the pendency of appeal in Engle Progeny Cases. The amended statute provides for the amount of security for individual Engle 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. The plaintiffs in some of the cases have challenged the constitutionality of the amended statute. As of February 9, 2012, none of these motions had been granted and courts either denied these challenges or rulings have not been issued. In January 2012, the Florida Supreme Court agreed to review one of the orders denying a challenge to the amended statute.

West Virginia Individual Personal Injury Cases

The West Virginia Individual Personal Injury Cases (the “IPIC Cases”) are brought by individuals who allege cancer or other health effects caused by smoking cigarettes, by smoking cigars, or by using smokeless tobacco products in a single West Virginia court. Approximately 615 IPIC 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 IPIC Cases may be consolidated for trial with this group. The court has entered a trial plan for the IPIC Cases that calls for a multi-phase trial. The first phase of trial began in October 2011 but the court ordered a mistrial in November 2011. As of February 9, 2012, a new date for trial had not been scheduled.

In September 2000, there were approximately 1,250 IPIC 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. Approximately 630 IPIC Cases have been dismissed in their entirety. Lorillard Tobacco has been dismissed from approximately 580 additional IPIC Cases because those plaintiffs did not submit evidence that they used 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 February 9, 2012, Lorillard Tobacco is a defendant in 31 of the pending IPIC Cases. Lorillard, Inc. was not a defendant in any of the IPIC Cases.

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 30 plaintiffs. Twenty-eight 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. 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. 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 (the “Severed IPIC Cases”). Neither Lorillard Tobacco nor Lorillard, Inc. is a defendant in either of the Severed IPIC Cases.

As of February 9, 2012, the Severed IPIC Claims and the Severed IPIC Cases were not subject to a trial plan. None of the Severed IPIC Claims or the Severed IPIC Cases was scheduled for trial as of February 9, 2012. Trial dates are subject to change.

Flight Attendant Cases

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 Broin v. Philip Morris Companies, Inc., et al. (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.

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.

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, French v. Philip Morris Incorporated, et al., 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.

As of February 9, 2012, none of the Flight Attendant Cases were scheduled for trial. Trial dates are subject to change.

In 2010, some of the attorneys who represent the plaintiffs in the Flight Attendant Cases filed a motion for sanctions against the defendants, including Lorillard Tobacco, in which plaintiffs alleged that the defendants engaged in certain conduct. In the motion for sanctions, as amended, plaintiffs contended that Philip Morris USA, R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company and Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corporation tortuously interfered with negotiations the plaintiffs in the Flight Attendant Cases initiated with Lorillard Tobacco and caused Lorillard Tobacco to reject plaintiffs’ offers of judgment. Plaintiffs in all of the Flight Attendant Cases submitted offers of judgment to Lorillard Tobacco during 2000 that proposed to resolve plaintiffs’ claims against Lorillard Tobacco in each of the pending Flight Attendant Cases in which plaintiffs allege lung cancer for $15,000 and to resolve all remaining Flight Attendant Cases for $2,650 each. Plaintiffs contended in the motion for sanctions that Lorillard Tobacco’s subsequent rejection of the offers of judgment was prompted by an agreement it reached with Philip Morris USA, R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company and Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corporation to partially indemnify Lorillard Tobacco should it be required to satisfy any judgment for attorneys’ fees returned against it in the Flight Attendant Cases. Plaintiffs contended this agreement constituted misconduct and that it violated the Broin settlement agreement. Plaintiffs sought $30 million in sanctions, plus interest of 9% from the date of the anticipated acceptance of the offers of judgment, on behalf of all of the plaintiffs in the Flight Attendant Cases. In June 2011, the Circuit Court of Miami-Dade County, Florida, denied the motion for sanctions, and plaintiffs filed a petition for writ of certiorari to the Florida Third District Court of Appeal. In January 2012, the Court of Appeal denied review of plaintiffs’ petition. . Plaintiffs were granted an extension of time to file a petition for rehearing. As of February 9, 2012, the deadline for plaintiffs to file the petition for rehearing had not expired.

Class Action Cases

Lorillard Tobacco is a defendant in four 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.

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.

The Scott Case. In one Class Action Case against Lorillard Tobacco, Scott v. The American Tobacco Company, et al. (District Court, Orleans Parish, Louisiana, filed May 24, 1996), a Louisiana jury awarded damages to the certified class in 2004. The jury’s award was reduced on two separate occasions in response to defendants’ appeals, but defendants exhausted their appeals and have paid the final judgment. In August 2011, Lorillard Tobacco paid approximately $69.7 million, or one-fourth of the award, to satisfy its portion of the final judgment and the interest that accrued while appeals were pending.

In 1997, Scott 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.

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.

Counsel for the certified class has filed a motion for attorneys’ fees, for costs and expenses, and for an award to the class representatives. Plaintiffs’ counsel contends they incurred approximately $59.0 million in attorneys’ fees, and further contend that the value of those fees, given the age of the case, is approximately $92.0 million. Plaintiffs’ counsel request that a multiplier as high as seven be applied to any award ordered by the court. Plaintiffs’ counsel ask the court to order defendants to pay an award in excess of $300.0 million, but request in the alternative that they be awarded, from the fund awarded to the class, 33%-40% of the amount of that fund. In addition, plaintiffs’ counsel seeks approximately $13.4 million in costs and expenses. Plaintiffs’ counsel further request that the court order a “substantial” award of an unspecified amount to the two class representatives for their services. As of February 9, 2012, the court had not ruled on plaintiffs’ counsels’ applications.

Other Class Action Cases. In another Class Action Case pending against Lorillard Tobacco, Brown v. The American Tobacco Company, Inc., et al. (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 Brown to the trial court for further activity. The class in Brown 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 has permitted plaintiffs to assert claims based on the alleged misrepresentation, concealment and fraudulent marketing of “light” or “ultra-light” cigarettes. In January 2012, defendants filed a motion for class decertification. The court has scheduled argument of this motion for March 2012. Trial is set for October 5, 2012. Lorillard, Inc. is not a defendant in Brown.

In another Class Action Case, Cleary v. Philip Morris Incorporated, et al. (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. In August 2011, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the final judgment entered in defendants’ favor. In November 2011, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration of the order affirming the dismissal of the case. Plaintiffs did not pursue an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, and the case was concluded. Lorillard Tobacco was a defendant in Cleary. Lorillard, Inc. was not a defendant in Cleary.

“Lights” Class Action Cases. Neither Lorillard Tobacco nor Lorillard, Inc. is a defendant in another approximately 25 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 these cases, Craft v. Philip Morris USA (Circuit Court, City of St. Louis, Missouri, filed February 29, 2000), trial began in September 2011. During November 2011, the court ordered a mistrial when the jury was unable to reach a verdict. Retrial has been scheduled for January 2013. In another of the “lights” Class Action Cases, Good v. Altria Group, Inc., et al., 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 (the “MDL cases”). The court denied plaintiffs’ motion for class certification filed in four of the MDL Cases, and a federal appellate court declined to review the class certification order. Following the appellate court’s ruling, plaintiffs dismissed thirteen of the MDL Cases, including Good v. Altria Group, Inc., et al. Plaintiffs in the four MDL Cases that remain pending have asked the court to transfer their claims to the courts in which each originated. The court has recommended to the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation that it approve plaintiffs’ motion to transfer the cases to the courts from which they were transferred. As of February 9, 2012, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation had not issued a final ruling on the court’s recommendation.

Reimbursement Cases

Lorillard Tobacco is a defendant in the U.S. Government Case, described below. Lorillard Tobacco was a defendant in two additional cases that were concluded since January 1, 2011.

City of St. Louis. In April 2011, a jury returned a verdict for the defendants, including Lorillard Tobacco, in the case of City of St. Louis [Missouri] v. American Tobacco Co., Inc., et al. (Circuit Court, City of St. Louis, Missouri, filed November 25, 1998). Plaintiffs were suing on behalf of 37 Missouri hospitals. Plaintiffs did not pursue an appeal, and City of St. Louis was concluded.

Clalit. Plaintiffs in a Reimbursement Case pending in Israel attempted to assert claims against Lorillard Tobacco and Loews. In 2011, the Israel Supreme Court ruled that plaintiffs lacked the rights to sue certain of the defendants. In 2012, the Israel Supreme Court denied plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration of the 2011 decision. The 2012 ruling effectively disposed of the case as to all defendants.

U.S. Government Case. 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, United States of America v. Philip Morris USA, Inc., et al., (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.

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.

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. As of February 9, 2012, the parties had submitted briefs regarding the issues that were remanded, and the court had not entered an amended final judgment. Following remand, the defendants filed a motion asserting that the 2009 Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act had, in whole or in part, extinguished the court’s jurisdiction. In the alternative, defendants urged the court not to order any injunctive remedy in deference to the regulatory authority recently extended to the Food and Drug Administration. The trial court denied this motion in June 2011, and defendants have noticed an appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. The government filed a motion following remand requesting clarification of the extent of the defendants’ obligation to make disclosures of disaggregated marketing data and the use the government can make of that data. The trial court granted that motion in April, 2011, holding that the defendants must provide a broad range of data for the ten-year period beginning July 29, 2010, and that the Department of Justice may share that data with other governmental agencies, subject to the confidentiality requirements previously imposed by the trial court. The defendants have noticed an appeal from this order to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. As of February 9, 2012, the Court of Appeals had not ruled on defendants’ appeals.

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, which effectively disposed of the claim to recover profits in this case.

Settlement of State Reimbursement Litigation. 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.”

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 $294 million and $1.307 billion for the three and twelve months ended December 31, 2011, respectively, and $300 million and $1.212 billion for the three and twelve months ended December 31, 2010, 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.

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.

Lorillard Tobacco, the other Original Participating Manufacturers and other subsequent participating manufacturers (collectively, the “Participating Manufacturers”) are seeking from the States 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 Participating Manufacturers are ultimately successful, any recovery would be in the form of reimbursement of proceeds already paid or as a credit against future payments by the Participating Manufacturers.

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.

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.

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.

Filter Cases

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. As of February 9, 2012, Lorillard Tobacco was a defendant in 42 Filter Cases. Lorillard, Inc. was a defendant in two Filter Cases, including one that also names Lorillard Tobacco. Since January 1, 2010, Lorillard Tobacco has paid, or has reached agreement to pay, a total of approximately $18.5 million in settlements to finally resolve 70 claims, including the Lenney case, discussed below. The related expense was recorded in selling, general and administrative expenses on the consolidated statements of income. Since January 1, 2010, verdicts have been returned in three Filter Cases, Cox v. Asbestos Corporation, Ltd., et al, which was tried in the Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County, Lenney v. Armstrong International, Inc., et al., tried in the Superior Court of California, San Francisco County, and McGuire v. Lorillard Tobacco Company and Hollingsworth & Vose Company, tried in the Circuit Court, Division Four, of Jefferson County, Kentucky. The jury in the Cox case returned a verdict for Lorillard Tobacco. Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed Lorillard Tobacco from their appeal to the California Court of Appeals and the Cox case is concluded. In the Lenney trial, the jury found in favor of the plaintiffs as to their claims for compensatory damages and damages for loss of consortium, but it determined that plaintiffs were not entitled to an award of punitive damages from Lorillard Tobacco or Hollingsworth & Vose. Pursuant to the terms of a 1952 agreement between P. Lorillard Company and H&V Specialties Co., Inc. (the manufacturer of the filter material), Lorillard Tobacco is required to indemnify Hollingsworth & Vose for legal fees, expenses, judgments and resolutions in cases and claims alleging injury from finished products sold by P. Lorillard Company that contained the filter material. The final judgment entered by the trial court awarded plaintiffs a total of approximately $1.1 million in compensatory damages, damages for loss of consortium and costs from Lorillard Tobacco and Hollingsworth & Vose. Lorillard Tobacco and Hollingsworth & Vose have noticed an appeal to the California Court of Appeals. In 2012, Lorillard Tobacco reached agreement with the plaintiffs to resolve plaintiffs’ pending claims, and any claims they might assert in the future, for an amount that is included in the above total for settlements reached since January 1, 2010. The jury in the McGuire case returned a verdict for Lorillard Tobacco and Hollingsworth & Vose. As of February 9, 2012, the deadline for plaintiff to seek post-trial relief or to appeal had not expired. As of February 9, 2012, ten Filter Cases were scheduled for trial or have been placed on courts’ trial calendars. Trial dates are subject to change.

Tobacco-Related Antitrust Cases

Indirect Purchaser Suits

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. Four indirect purchaser suits, in New York, Florida, New Mexico and Michigan, thereafter were dismissed by courts in those states. The actions in all other states, except for Kansas, were either voluntarily dismissed or dismissed by the courts.

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. All of the defendants have filed motions for summary judgment seeking dismissal of the Kansas suit, which motions were argued in January 2012. As of February 9, 2012, the District Court of Seward County had not ruled on the motions.

MSA-Related Antitrust Suit

In October 2008, Lorillard Tobacco was named as a defendant in an action filed in the Western District of Kentucky, Vibo Corporation, Inc. d/b/a/ General Tobacco v. Conway, et al. 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 appealed to the federal Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. The appeal was fully briefed and argued in October 2011. As of February 9, 2012, the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit had not ruled on plaintiff’s appeal.

Defenses

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.

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 United States of America v. Philip Morris USA, Inc., et al., 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. 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.

Indemnification Obligations

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’s 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).

Loews is a defendant in two pending product liability cases, both of which are purported Class Action Cases. Lorillard Tobacco also is a defendant in both of the 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.

Other Litigation

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.