2.2.0.25falsefalse0212 - Disclosure - Contingenciestruefalsefalse1falsefalseUSDfalsefalse1/1/2010 - 12/31/2010 USD ($) USD ($) / shares $Jan-01-2010_Dec-31-2010http://www.sec.gov/CIK0000059440duration2010-01-01T00:00:002010-12-31T00:00:00USDStandardhttp://www.xbrl.org/2003/iso4217USDiso42170USDEPSDividehttp://www.xbrl.org/2003/iso4217USDiso4217http://www.xbrl.org/2003/instancesharesxbrli0USDUSD$2true0vgr_ContingenciesAbstractvgrfalsenadurationContingencies.falsefalsefalsefalsefalsefalsefalsefalsefalsefalse1falsefalsefalse00falsefalsefalsefalsefalseOtherxbrli:stringItemTypestringContingencies.falsefalseContingencies [Abstract]3false0us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureTextBlockus-gaaptruenadurationNo definition available.falsefalsefalsefalsefalsefalsefalsefalsefalsefalseverboselabel1falsefalsefalse00  <div style="margin-left: 0%"> <div style="margin-top: 12pt; font-size: 1pt">  </div> <table width="100%" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, Helvetica; color: #000000; background: transparent; text-align: left"> <tr> <td width="5%"></td> <td width="95%"></td> </tr> <tr valign="top"> <td> <b><font style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', Times">12.  </font></b> </td> <td> <b><u><font style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', Times">CONTINGENCIES</font></u></b> </td> </tr> </table> <div style="margin-top: 6pt; font-size: 1pt">  </div> <div align="left" style="margin-left: 2%; margin-right: 0%; font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, Helvetica; color: #000000; background: transparent"> <b><i><u><font style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', Times">Tobacco-Related Litigation</font></u><font style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', Times">:</font></i></b> </div> <div style="margin-top: 6pt; font-size: 1pt">  </div> <div align="left" style="margin-left: 2%; margin-right: 0%; font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, Helvetica; color: #000000; background: transparent"> <i><font style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', Times">Overview</font></i> </div> <div style="margin-top: 6pt; font-size: 1pt">  </div> <div align="left" style="margin-left: 0%; margin-right: 0%; text-indent: 4%; font-size: 10pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', Times; color: #000000; background: transparent"> Since 1954, Liggett and other United States cigarette manufacturers have been named as defendants in numerous direct, third-party and purported class actions predicated on the theory that cigarette manufacturers should be liable for damages alleged to have been caused by cigarette smoking or by exposure to secondary smoke from cigarettes. New cases continue to be commenced against Liggett and other cigarette manufacturers. The cases generally fall into the following categories: (i) smoking and health cases alleging personal injury brought on behalf of individual plaintiffs (“Individual Actions”); (ii) smoking and health cases primarily alleging personal injury or seeking court-supervised programs for ongoing medical monitoring, as well as cases alleging the use of the terms “lights” <font style="white-space: nowrap">and/or</font> “ultra lights” constitutes a deceptive and unfair trade practice, common law fraud or violation of federal law, purporting to be brought on behalf of a class of individual plaintiffs (“Class Actions”); and (iii) health care cost recovery actions brought by various foreign and domestic governmental plaintiffs and non-governmental plaintiffs seeking reimbursement for health care expenditures allegedly caused by cigarette smoking <font style="white-space: nowrap">and/or</font> disgorgement of profits (“Health Care Cost Recovery Actions”). As new cases are commenced, the costs associated with defending these cases and the risks relating to the inherent unpredictability of litigation continue to increase. The future financial impact of the risks and expenses of litigation and the effects of the tobacco litigation settlements discussed below are not quantifiable at this time. For the years ended December 31, 2010, 2009 and 2008, Liggett incurred legal expenses and other litigation costs totaling approximately $23,389 (which includes expense of $16,161 for the <i>Lukacs </i>and <i>Ferlanti</i> judgments described below), $6,000 and $8,800, respectively. </div> <div style="margin-top: 6pt; font-size: 1pt">  </div> <div align="left" style="margin-left: 0%; margin-right: 0%; text-indent: 4%; font-size: 10pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', Times; color: #000000; background: transparent"> Litigation is subject to uncertainty and it is possible that there could be adverse developments in pending or future cases. An unfavorable outcome or settlement of pending tobacco-related or other litigation could encourage the commencement of additional litigation. Damages claimed in some tobacco-related or other litigation are or can be significant. </div> <div style="margin-top: 6pt; font-size: 1pt">  </div> <div align="left" style="margin-left: 0%; margin-right: 0%; text-indent: 4%; font-size: 10pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', Times; color: #000000; background: transparent"> Although Liggett has been able to obtain required bonds or relief from bonding requirements in order to prevent plaintiffs from seeking to collect judgments while adverse verdicts are on appeal, there remains a risk that such relief may not be obtainable in all cases. This risk has been reduced given that a majority of states now limit the dollar amount of bonds or require no bond at all. Liggett has secured approximately $5,055 in bonds as of December 31, 2010. </div> <div style="margin-top: 6pt; font-size: 1pt">  </div> <div align="left" style="margin-left: 0%; margin-right: 0%; text-indent: 4%; font-size: 10pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', Times; color: #000000; background: transparent"> In June 2009, Florida amended its existing bond cap statute by adding a $200,000 bond cap that applies to all <i>Engle </i>progeny cases (defined below) in the aggregate and establishes individual bond caps for individual <i>Engle </i>progeny cases in amounts that vary depending on the number of judgments in effect at a given time. The legislation applies to judgments entered after the effective date and remains in effect until December 31, 2012. Certain plaintiffs have challenged the constitutionality of the bond cap statute. In one of these cases, the court recently upheld the constitutionality of the statute. Although the Company cannot predict the outcome of such challenges, it is possible that the Company’s financial position, results of operations, or cash flows could be materially affected by an unfavorable outcome of such challenges. </div> <div style="margin-top: 6pt; font-size: 1pt">  </div> <div align="left" style="margin-left: 0%; margin-right: 0%; text-indent: 4%; font-size: 10pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', Times; color: #000000; background: transparent"> The Company and its subsidiaries record provisions in their consolidated financial statements for pending litigation when they determine that an unfavorable outcome is probable and the amount of loss can be reasonably estimated. At the present time, while it is reasonably possible that an unfavorable outcome in a case may occur, except as disclosed in this Note 12: (i) management has concluded that it is not probable that a loss has been incurred in any of the pending tobacco-related cases; or (ii) management is unable to estimate the possible loss or range of loss that could result from an unfavorable outcome of any of the pending tobacco-related cases and, therefore, management has not provided any amounts in the consolidated financial statements for unfavorable outcomes, if any. Liggett believes, and has been so advised by counsel, that it has valid defenses to the litigation pending against it, as well as valid bases for appeal of adverse verdicts. All such cases are, and will continue to be vigorously defended. However, Liggett may enter into settlement discussions in particular cases if it believes it is in its best interest to do so. </div> <div style="margin-top: 12pt; font-size: 1pt">  </div> <div align="left" style="margin-left: 2%; margin-right: 0%; font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, Helvetica; color: #000000; background: transparent"> <i><font style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', Times">Individual Actions</font></i> </div> <div style="margin-top: 6pt; font-size: 1pt">  </div> <div align="left" style="margin-left: 0%; margin-right: 0%; text-indent: 4%; font-size: 10pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', Times; color: #000000; background: transparent"> As of December 31, 2010, there were 36 individual cases pending against Liggett <font style="white-space: nowrap">and/or</font> the Company, where one or more individual plaintiffs allege injury resulting from cigarette smoking, addiction to cigarette smoking or exposure to secondary smoke and seek compensatory and, in some cases, punitive damages. These cases do not include <i>Engle</i> progeny cases (described below) or the approximately 100 individual cases pending in West Virginia state court as part of a consolidated action. The following table lists the number of individual cases by state that are pending against Liggett or its affiliates as of December 31, 2010 (excluding <i>Engle </i>progeny cases in Florida and the consolidated cases in West Virginia): </div> <div style="margin-top: 6pt; font-size: 1pt">  </div> <table border="0" width="100%" align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', Times; color: #000000; background: transparent; text-align: left">  <tr style="font-size: 1pt" valign="bottom"> <td width="92%"> </td> <td width="2%"> </td> <td width="1%" align="right"> </td> <td width="4%" align="right"> </td> <td width="1%" align="left"> </td> </tr>   <tr style="font-size: 8pt" valign="bottom" align="center"> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="left" valign="bottom">   </td> <td>   </td> <td colspan="2" nowrap="nowrap" align="center" valign="bottom"> <b>Number<br /> </b> </td> <td>   </td> </tr> <tr style="font-size: 8pt" valign="bottom" align="center"> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="left" valign="bottom" style="border-bottom: 1px solid #000000"> <b>State</b> </td> <td>   </td> <td colspan="2" nowrap="nowrap" align="center" valign="bottom" style="border-bottom: 1px solid #000000"> <b>of Cases</b> </td> <td>   </td> </tr> <tr style="line-height: 3pt; font-size: 1pt"> <td>  </td> </tr>  <tr valign="bottom" style="background: #cceeff"> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="left" valign="bottom"> <div style="text-indent: -10pt; margin-left: 10pt"> Florida </div> </td> <td>   </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="left" valign="bottom">   </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="right" valign="bottom"> 15 </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="left" valign="bottom">   </td> </tr> <tr valign="bottom"> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="left" valign="bottom"> <div style="text-indent: -10pt; margin-left: 10pt"> New York </div> </td> <td>   </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="left" valign="bottom">   </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="right" valign="bottom"> 9 </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="left" valign="bottom">   </td> </tr> <tr valign="bottom" style="background: #cceeff"> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="left" valign="bottom"> <div style="text-indent: -10pt; margin-left: 10pt"> Louisiana </div> </td> <td>   </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="left" valign="bottom">   </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="right" valign="bottom"> 5 </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="left" valign="bottom">   </td> </tr> <tr valign="bottom"> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="left" valign="bottom"> <div style="text-indent: -10pt; margin-left: 10pt"> Maryland </div> </td> <td>   </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="left" valign="bottom">   </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="right" valign="bottom"> 3 </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="left" valign="bottom">   </td> </tr> <tr valign="bottom" style="background: #cceeff"> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="left" valign="bottom"> <div style="text-indent: -10pt; margin-left: 10pt"> West Virginia </div> </td> <td>   </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="left" valign="bottom">   </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="right" valign="bottom"> 2 </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="left" valign="bottom">   </td> </tr> <tr valign="bottom"> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="left" valign="bottom"> <div style="text-indent: -10pt; margin-left: 10pt"> Missouri </div> </td> <td>   </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="left" valign="bottom">   </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="right" valign="bottom"> 1 </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="left" valign="bottom">   </td> </tr> <tr valign="bottom" style="background: #cceeff"> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="left" valign="bottom"> <div style="text-indent: -10pt; margin-left: 10pt"> Ohio </div> </td> <td>   </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="left" valign="bottom">   </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="right" valign="bottom"> 1 </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="left" valign="bottom">   </td> </tr> </table> <div align="left" style="margin-left: 0%; margin-right: 0%; text-indent: 0%; font-size: 10pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', Times; color: #000000; background: transparent"> </div> <div style="margin-top: 6pt; font-size: 1pt">  </div> <div align="left" style="margin-left: 0%; margin-right: 0%; text-indent: 4%; font-size: 10pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', Times; color: #000000; background: transparent"> <i>Liggett Only Cases.</i>  There are currently seven cases pending where Liggett is the only tobacco company defendant. Cases where Liggett is the only defendant could increase substantially as a result of the <i>Engle </i>progeny cases. In February 2009, <i>in Ferlanti v. Liggett Group</i>, a Florida state court jury awarded compensatory damages of $1,200 as well as $96 in expenses, but found that the plaintiff was 40% at fault. Therefore, plaintiff’s award was reduced to $720 in compensatory damages. Punitive damages were not awarded. In February 2011, the award was affirmed on appeal. In September 2010, the court awarded plaintiff’s attorneys’ fees of $996. Liggett appealed the attorneys’ fee award. Liggett has accrued $2,000 for this matter for the year ended December 31, 2010. In <i>Blitch v. R.J. Reynolds</i>, an <i>Engle </i>progeny case, trial is scheduled for March 7, 2011. In <i>O’Dwyer-Harkins v. R.J. Reynolds</i>, an <i>Engle </i>progeny case, trial is scheduled for August 8, 2011. There has been no recent activity in <i>Hausrath v. Philip Morris</i>, a case pending in New York state court, where two individuals are suing. The other three individual actions, in which Liggett is the only tobacco company defendant, are dormant. In <i>Davis v. Liggett Group</i>, another Liggett only case, judgment was entered against Liggett in the amount of $540 plus attorneys’ fees. The judgment was paid by Liggett and this matter is concluded. </div> <div style="margin-top: 6pt; font-size: 1pt">  </div> <div align="left" style="margin-left: 0%; margin-right: 0%; text-indent: 4%; font-size: 10pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', Times; color: #000000; background: transparent"> The plaintiffs’ allegations of liability in cases in which individuals seek recovery for injuries allegedly caused by cigarette smoking are based on various theories of recovery, including negligence, gross negligence, breach of special duty, strict liability, fraud, concealment, misrepresentation, design defect, failure to warn, breach of express and implied warranties, conspiracy, aiding and abetting, concert of action, unjust enrichment, common law public nuisance, property damage, invasion of privacy, mental anguish, emotional distress, disability, shock, indemnity and violations of deceptive trade practice laws, the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”), state RICO statutes and antitrust statutes. In many of these cases, in addition to compensatory damages, plaintiffs also seek other forms of relief including treble/multiple damages, medical monitoring, disgorgement of profits and punitive damages. Although alleged damages often are not determinable from a complaint, and the law governing the pleading and calculation of damages varies from state to state and jurisdiction to jurisdiction, compensatory and punitive damages have been specifically pleaded in a number of cases, sometimes in amounts ranging into the hundreds of millions and even billions of dollars. </div> <div style="margin-top: 6pt; font-size: 1pt">  </div> <div align="left" style="margin-left: 0%; margin-right: 0%; text-indent: 4%; font-size: 10pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', Times; color: #000000; background: transparent"> Defenses raised in individual cases include lack of proximate cause, assumption of the risk, comparative fault <font style="white-space: nowrap">and/or</font> contributory negligence, lack of design defect, statute of limitations, equitable defenses such as “unclean hands” and lack of benefit, failure to state a claim and federal preemption. </div> <div style="margin-top: 6pt; font-size: 1pt">  </div> <div align="left" style="margin-left: 0%; margin-right: 0%; text-indent: 4%; font-size: 10pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', Times; color: #000000; background: transparent"> In addition to several adverse verdicts against Liggett, jury awards in individual cases have also been returned against other cigarette manufacturers in recent years. The awards in these individual actions, often in excess of millions of dollars, may be for both compensatory and punitive damages. There are several significant jury awards against other cigarette manufacturers which are currently on appeal and several final awards, have been paid. </div> <div style="margin-top: 6pt; font-size: 1pt">  </div> <div align="left" style="margin-left: 0%; margin-right: 0%; text-indent: 4%; font-size: 10pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', Times; color: #000000; background: transparent"> <i>Engle Progeny Cases.</i>  In 2000, a jury in <i>Engle v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.</i>  rendered a $145,000,000 punitive damages verdict in favor of a “Florida Class” against certain cigarette manufacturers, including Liggett. Pursuant to the Florida Supreme Court’s July 2006 ruling in <i>Engle</i>, which decertified the class on a prospective basis, and affirmed the appellate court’s reversal of the punitive damages award, former class members had one year from January 11, 2007 in which to file individual lawsuits. In addition, some individuals who filed suit prior to January 11, 2007, and who claim they meet the conditions in <i>Engle</i>, are attempting to avail themselves of the <i>Engle </i>ruling. Lawsuits by individuals requesting the benefit of the <i>Engle</i> ruling, whether filed before or after the January 11, 2007 deadline, are referred to as the “<i>Engle </i>progeny cases.” Liggett and the Company have been named in 6,827 <i>Engle </i>progeny cases in both federal (3,735 cases) and state (3,092 cases) courts in Florida. Other cigarette manufacturers have also been named as defendants in these cases, although as a case proceeds, one or more defendants may ultimately be dismissed from the action. These cases include approximately 9,100 plaintiffs, 671 of which represent consortium claims. The number of state court <i>Engle </i>progeny cases may increase as multi-plaintiff cases continue to be severed into individual cases. The total number of plaintiffs may also increase as a result of attempts by existing plaintiffs to add additional parties. </div> <div style="margin-top: 6pt; font-size: 1pt">  </div> <div align="left" style="margin-left: 0%; margin-right: 0%; text-indent: 4%; font-size: 10pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', Times; color: #000000; background: transparent"> As of December 31, 2010, in addition to the <i>Lukacs </i>case (described below), the following <i>Engle</i> progeny cases have resulted in judgments against Liggett: </div> <div style="margin-top: 6pt; font-size: 1pt">  </div> <table border="0" width="100%" align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', Times; color: #000000; background: transparent; text-align: left">  <tr style="font-size: 1pt" valign="bottom"> <td width="31%"> </td> <td width="2%"> </td> <td width="1%" align="right"> </td> <td width="21%" align="right"> </td> <td width="1%" align="left"> </td> <td width="3%"> </td> <td width="11%"> </td> <td width="3%"> </td> <td width="11%"> </td> <td width="3%"> </td> <td width="1%" align="right"> </td> <td width="11%" align="right"> </td> <td width="1%" align="left"> </td> </tr>   <tr style="font-size: 8pt" valign="bottom" align="center"> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="left" valign="bottom">   </td> <td>   </td> <td colspan="2" nowrap="nowrap" align="center" valign="bottom">   </td> <td>   </td> <td>   </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="center" valign="bottom">   </td> <td>   </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="center" valign="bottom"> <b>Compensatory<br /> </b> </td> <td>   </td> <td colspan="2" nowrap="nowrap" align="center" valign="bottom">   </td> <td>   </td> </tr> <tr style="font-size: 8pt" valign="bottom" align="center"> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="left" valign="bottom" style="border-bottom: 1px solid #000000"> <b>Date</b> </td> <td>   </td> <td colspan="2" nowrap="nowrap" align="center" valign="bottom" style="border-bottom: 1px solid #000000"> <b>Case Name</b> </td> <td>   </td> <td>   </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="center" valign="bottom" style="border-bottom: 1px solid #000000"> <b>County</b> </td> <td>   </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="center" valign="bottom" style="border-bottom: 1px solid #000000"> <b>Damages</b> </td> <td>   </td> <td colspan="2" nowrap="nowrap" align="center" valign="bottom" style="border-bottom: 1px solid #000000"> <b>Punitive Damages</b> </td> <td>   </td> </tr> <tr style="line-height: 3pt; font-size: 1pt"> <td>  </td> </tr>  <tr valign="bottom" style="background: #cceeff"> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="left" valign="bottom"> <div style="text-indent: -10pt; margin-left: 10pt"> August 2009 </div> </td> <td>   </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="left" valign="bottom">   </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="right" valign="bottom"> <i>Campbell v. R.J. Reynolds</i> </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="left" valign="bottom">   </td> <td>   </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="left" valign="bottom"> Escambia </td> <td>   </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="right" valign="bottom"> $156 </td> <td>   </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="left" valign="bottom">   </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="right" valign="bottom"> None </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="left" valign="bottom">   </td> </tr> <tr valign="bottom"> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="left" valign="bottom"> <div style="text-indent: -10pt; margin-left: 10pt"> March 2010 </div> </td> <td>   </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="left" valign="bottom">   </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="right" valign="bottom"> <i>Douglas v. R.J. Reynolds</i> </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="left" valign="bottom">   </td> <td>   </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="left" valign="bottom"> Hillsborough </td> <td>   </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="right" valign="bottom"> $1,350 </td> <td>   </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="left" valign="bottom">   </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="right" valign="bottom"> None </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="left" valign="bottom">   </td> </tr> <tr valign="bottom" style="background: #cceeff"> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="left" valign="bottom"> <div style="text-indent: -10pt; margin-left: 10pt"> April 2010 </div> </td> <td>   </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="left" valign="bottom">   </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="right" valign="bottom"> <i>Clay v. R.J. Reynolds</i> </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="left" valign="bottom">   </td> <td>   </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="left" valign="bottom"> Escambia </td> <td>   </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="right" valign="bottom"> $349 </td> <td>   </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="left" valign="bottom"> $ </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="right" valign="bottom"> 1,000 </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="left" valign="bottom">   </td> </tr> <tr valign="bottom"> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="left" valign="bottom"> <div style="text-indent: -10pt; margin-left: 10pt"> April 2010 </div> </td> <td>   </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="left" valign="bottom">   </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="right" valign="bottom"> <i>Putney v. R.J. Reynolds</i> </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="left" valign="bottom">   </td> <td>   </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="left" valign="bottom"> Broward </td> <td>   </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="right" valign="bottom"> $3,008 </td> <td>   </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="left" valign="bottom">   </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="right" valign="bottom"> None </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="left" valign="bottom">   </td> </tr> </table> <div align="left" style="margin-left: 0%; margin-right: 0%; text-indent: 0%; font-size: 10pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', Times; color: #000000; background: transparent"> </div> <div style="margin-top: 6pt; font-size: 1pt">  </div> <div align="left" style="margin-left: 0%; margin-right: 0%; text-indent: 4%; font-size: 10pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', Times; color: #000000; background: transparent"> Through December 31, 2010, there were 20 plaintiffs’ verdicts against the industry in <i>Engle </i>progeny cases, including the four referenced above, and 11 defense verdicts. The plaintiffs’ verdicts are currently on appeal. Several defense verdicts have also been appealed. For further information on the <i>Engle </i>case and on <i>Engle </i>progeny cases, see “<i>Class Actions — Engle Case</i>,” below. </div> <div style="margin-top: 6pt; font-size: 1pt">  </div> <div align="left" style="margin-left: 0%; margin-right: 0%; text-indent: 4%; font-size: 10pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', Times; color: #000000; background: transparent"> <i>Lukacs Case.</i>  In June 2002, the jury in a Florida state court action entitled <i>Lukacs v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., </i>awarded $37,500 in compensatory damages, jointly and severally, in a case involving Liggett and two other cigarette manufacturers, which amount was subsequently reduced by the court. The jury found Liggett 50% responsible for the damages incurred by the plaintiff. The <i>Lukacs </i>case was the first case to be tried as an individual <i>Engle </i>progeny case, but was tried almost five years prior to the Florida Supreme Court’s final decision in <i>Engle</i>. In November 2008, the court entered final judgment in the amount of $24,835, plus interest from June 2002. Plaintiff filed a motion seeking an award of attorneys’ fees from Liggett based on plaintiff’s prior proposal for settlement. In March 2010, the Third District Court of Appeal affirmed the decision, <i>per curiam. </i>In June 2010, Liggett paid its share of the judgment and settled claims for attorneys’ fees and accrued interest for a total payment of $14,361. </div> <div style="margin-top: 12pt; font-size: 1pt">  </div> <div align="left" style="margin-left: 2%; margin-right: 0%; font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, Helvetica; color: #000000; background: transparent"> <i><font style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', Times">Class Actions</font></i> </div> <div style="margin-top: 6pt; font-size: 1pt">  </div> <div align="left" style="margin-left: 0%; margin-right: 0%; text-indent: 4%; font-size: 10pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', Times; color: #000000; background: transparent"> As of December 31, 2010, there were six actions pending for which either a class had been certified or plaintiffs were seeking class certification, where Liggett is a named defendant, including one alleged price fixing case. Other cigarette manufacturers are also named in these actions. </div> <div style="margin-top: 6pt; font-size: 1pt">  </div> <div align="left" style="margin-left: 0%; margin-right: 0%; text-indent: 4%; font-size: 10pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', Times; color: #000000; background: transparent"> Plaintiffs’ allegations of liability in class action cases are based on various theories of recovery, including negligence, gross negligence, strict liability, fraud, misrepresentation, design defect, failure to warn, nuisance, breach of express and implied warranties, breach of special duty, conspiracy, concert of action, violation of deceptive trade practice laws and consumer protection statutes and claims under the federal and state anti-racketeering statutes. Plaintiffs in the class actions seek various forms of relief, including compensatory and punitive damages, treble/multiple damages and other statutory damages and penalties, creation of medical monitoring and smoking cessation funds, disgorgement of profits, and injunctive and equitable relief. </div>  </div>   <div style="margin-left: 0%">  <div align="center" style="margin-left: 0%; margin-right: 0%; font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, Helvetica; color: #000000; background: transparent"> <b> <font style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', Times"> </font> </b> </div> <div style="margin-top: 0pt; font-size: 1pt"> </div> <div align="center" style="margin-left: 0%; margin-right: 0%; font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, Helvetica; color: #000000; background: transparent"> <b> <font style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', Times"> </font> </b> </div>  <div style="margin-top: 6pt; font-size: 1pt">  </div> <div align="left" style="margin-left: 0%; margin-right: 0%; text-indent: 4%; font-size: 10pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', Times; color: #000000; background: transparent"> Defenses raised in these cases include, among others, lack of proximate cause, individual issues predominate, assumption of the risk, comparative fault <font style="white-space: nowrap">and/or</font> contributory negligence, statute of limitations and federal preemption. </div> <div style="margin-top: 6pt; font-size: 1pt">  </div> <div align="left" style="margin-left: 0%; margin-right: 0%; text-indent: 4%; font-size: 10pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', Times; color: #000000; background: transparent"> <i>Engle Case.</i>  In May 1994, <i>Engle </i>was filed against Liggett and others in Miami-Dade County, Florida. The class consisted of all Florida residents who, by November 21, 1996, “have suffered, presently suffer or have died from diseases and medical conditions caused by their addiction to cigarette smoking.” In July 1999, after the conclusion of Phase I of the trial, the jury returned a verdict against Liggett and other cigarette manufacturers on certain issues determined by the trial court to be “common” to the causes of action of the plaintiff class. The jury made several findings adverse to the defendants including that defendants’ conduct “rose to a level that would permit a potential award or entitlement to punitive damages.” Phase II of the trial was a causation and damages trial for three of the class plaintiffs and a punitive damages trial on a <font style="white-space: nowrap">class-wide</font> basis before the same jury that returned the verdict in Phase I. In April 2000, the jury awarded compensatory damages of $12,704 to the three class plaintiffs, to be reduced in proportion to the respective plaintiff’s fault. In July 2000, the jury awarded approximately $145,000,000 in punitive damages, including $790,000 against Liggett. </div> <div style="margin-top: 6pt; font-size: 1pt">  </div> <div align="left" style="margin-left: 0%; margin-right: 0%; text-indent: 4%; font-size: 10pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', Times; color: #000000; background: transparent"> In May 2003, Florida’s Third District Court of Appeal reversed the trial court and remanded the case with instructions to decertify the class. The judgment in favor of one of the three class plaintiffs, in the amount of $5,831, was overturned as time barred and the court found that Liggett was not liable to the other two class plaintiffs. </div> <div style="margin-top: 6pt; font-size: 1pt">  </div> <div align="left" style="margin-left: 0%; margin-right: 0%; text-indent: 4%; font-size: 10pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', Times; color: #000000; background: transparent"> In July 2006, the Florida Supreme Court affirmed the decision vacating the punitive damages award and held that the class should be decertified prospectively, but determined that the following Phase I findings are entitled to <i>res judicata </i>effect in <i>Engle </i>progeny cases: (i) that smoking causes lung cancer, among other diseases; (ii) that nicotine in cigarettes is addictive; (iii) that defendants placed cigarettes on the market that were defective and unreasonably dangerous; (iv) that defendants concealed material information knowing that the information was false or misleading or failed to disclose a material fact concerning the health effects or addictive nature of smoking; (v) that defendants agreed to conceal or omit information regarding the health effects of cigarettes or their addictive nature with the intention that smokers would rely on the information to their detriment; (vi) that defendants sold or supplied cigarettes that were defective; and (vii) that defendants were negligent. The Florida Supreme Court decision also allowed former class members to proceed to trial on individual liability issues (using the above findings) and compensatory and punitive damage issues, provided they filed their individual lawsuits by January 2008. In December 2006, the Florida Supreme Court added the finding that defendants sold or supplied cigarettes that, at the time of sale or supply, did not conform to the representations made by defendants. In October 2007, the United States Supreme Court denied defendants’ petition for <i>writ of certiorari</i>. As a result of the <i>Engle </i>decision, approximately 9,100 plaintiffs have claims pending against the Company and Liggett and other cigarette manufacturers. </div> <div style="margin-top: 6pt; font-size: 1pt">  </div> <div align="left" style="margin-left: 0%; margin-right: 0%; text-indent: 4%; font-size: 10pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', Times; color: #000000; background: transparent"> Three federal district courts (in the <i>Merlob, Brown </i>and <i>Burr </i>cases) ruled that the findings in Phase I of the <i>Engle </i>proceedings could not be used to satisfy elements of plaintiffs’ claims, and two of those rulings (<i>Brown </i>and <i>Burr) </i>were certified by the trial court for interlocutory review. The certification was granted by the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit and the appeals were consolidated (in February 2009, the appeal in <i>Burr </i>was dismissed for lack of prosecution). In July 2010, the Eleventh Circuit ruled that plaintiffs do not have an unlimited right to use the findings from the original <i>Engle </i>trial to meet their burden of establishing the elements of their claims at trial. Rather, plaintiffs may only use the findings to establish specific facts that they demonstrate with a reasonable degree of certainty were actually decided by the original <i>Engle </i>jury. The Eleventh Circuit remanded the case to the district court to determine what specific factual findings the <i>Engle </i>jury actually made. All federal cases were stayed pending review by the Eleventh Circuit. On December 22, 2010, stays were lifted in 12 cases selected by plaintiffs. </div> <div style="margin-top: 6pt; font-size: 1pt">  </div> <div align="left" style="margin-left: 0%; margin-right: 0%; text-indent: 4%; font-size: 10pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', Times; color: #000000; background: transparent"> In December 2010, in the <i>Martin </i>case, a case against R.J. Reynolds, the Florida District Court of Appeals issued the first ruling by a Florida intermediate appellate court to address the <i>Brown </i>decision discussed above. The panel held that the trial court correctly construed the Florida Supreme Court’s 2006 decision in <i>Engle </i>in instructing the jury on the preclusive effect of the Phase I <i>Engle </i>proceedings, expressly disagreeing with certain aspects of the <i>Brown</i> decision. </div> <div style="margin-top: 6pt; font-size: 1pt">  </div> <div align="left" style="margin-left: 0%; margin-right: 0%; text-indent: 4%; font-size: 10pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', Times; color: #000000; background: transparent"> <i>Other Class Actions.</i>  In <i>Smith v. Philip Morris, </i>a Kansas state court case filed in February 2000, plaintiffs allege that cigarette manufacturers conspired to fix cigarette prices in violation of antitrust laws. Plaintiffs seek to recover an unspecified amount in actual and punitive damages. Class certification was granted in November 2001. Discovery is ongoing. </div> <div style="margin-top: 6pt; font-size: 1pt">  </div> <div align="left" style="margin-left: 0%; margin-right: 0%; text-indent: 4%; font-size: 10pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', Times; color: #000000; background: transparent"> Class action suits have been filed in a number of states against cigarette manufacturers, alleging, among other things, that use of the terms “light” and “ultra light” constitutes unfair and deceptive trade practices, among other things. In December 2008, the United States Supreme Court, in <i>Altria Group v. Good</i>, ruled that the Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act did not preempt the state law claims asserted by the plaintiffs and that they could proceed with their claims under the Maine Unfair Trade Practices Act. This ruling has resulted in the filing of additional “lights” class action cases in other states against other cigarette manufacturers. Although Liggett was not a defendant in the <i>Good </i>case, and is not a defendant in most of the other “lights” class actions, an adverse ruling or commencement of additional “lights” related class actions could have a material adverse effect on the Company. </div> <div style="margin-top: 6pt; font-size: 1pt">  </div> <div align="left" style="margin-left: 0%; margin-right: 0%; text-indent: 4%; font-size: 10pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', Times; color: #000000; background: transparent"> <i>In November 1997, in Young v. American Tobacco Co., </i>a purported personal injury class action was commenced on behalf of plaintiff and all similarly situated residents in Louisiana who, though not themselves cigarette smokers, are alleged to have been exposed to secondhand smoke from cigarettes which were manufactured by the defendants, and who suffered injury as a result of that exposure. The plaintiffs seek to recover an unspecified amount of compensatory and punitive damages. In October 2004, the trial court stayed this case pending the outcome of an appeal in another matter. </div> <div style="margin-top: 6pt; font-size: 1pt">  </div> <div align="left" style="margin-left: 0%; margin-right: 0%; text-indent: 4%; font-size: 10pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', Times; color: #000000; background: transparent"> <i>In June 1998, in Cleary v. Philip Morris, </i>a putative class action was brought in Illinois state court on behalf of persons who were allegedly injured by: (i) defendants’ purported conspiracy to conceal material facts regarding the addictive nature of nicotine; (ii) defendants’ alleged acts of targeting their advertising and marketing to minors; and (iii) defendants’ claimed breach of the public’s right to defendants’ compliance with laws prohibiting the distribution of cigarettes to minors. Plaintiffs sought disgorgement of all profits unjustly received through defendants’ sale of cigarettes to plaintiffs and the class. In March 2009, plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint adding, among other things, allegations regarding defendants’ sale of “lights” cigarettes. The case was then removed to federal court on the basis of this new claim. In November 2009, plaintiffs filed a revised motion for class certification as to the three proposed classes, which motion was denied by the court. In February 2010, the court granted summary judgment in favor of defendants as to all claims, other than a “lights” claim involving another cigarette manufacturer. The court granted leave to the plaintiffs to reinstate the motion as to the addiction claims. Plaintiffs filed a Fourth Amended Complaint in an attempt to resurrect their addiction claims. In June 2010, the court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the Fourth Amended Complaint and in July 2010, the court denied plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration. In August 2010, plaintiffs appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. </div> <div style="margin-top: 6pt; font-size: 1pt">  </div> <div align="left" style="margin-left: 0%; margin-right: 0%; text-indent: 4%; font-size: 10pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', Times; color: #000000; background: transparent"> In April 2001, in <i>Brown v. Philip Morris USA, </i>a California state court granted in part plaintiffs’ motion for class certification and certified a class comprised of adult residents of California who smoked at least one of defendants’ cigarettes “during the applicable time period” and who were exposed to defendants’ marketing and advertising activities in California. In March 2005, the court granted defendants’ motion to decertify the class based on a recent change in California law. In June 2009, the California Supreme Court reversed and remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings regarding whether the class representatives have, or can, demonstrate standing. In August 2009, the California Supreme Court denied defendants’ rehearing petition and issued its mandate. In September 2009, plaintiffs sought reconsideration of the court’s September 2004 order finding that plaintiffs’ allegations regarding “lights” cigarettes are preempted by federal law, in light of the United States Supreme Court decision in <i>Good</i>. In March 2010, the trial court granted reconsideration of its September 2004 order granting partial summary judgment to defendants with respect to plaintiffs’ “lights” claims on the basis of judicial decisions issued since its order was issued, including <i>Good</i>, thereby reinstating plaintiffs’ “lights” claims. Since the trial court’s prior ruling decertifying the class was reversed on appeal by the California Supreme Court, the parties and the court are treating all claims currently being asserted by the plaintiffs as certified, subject, however, to defendants’ challenge to the class representatives standing to assert their claims. Trial is scheduled to start on May 6, 2011. </div> <div style="margin-top: 6pt; font-size: 1pt">  </div> <div align="left" style="margin-left: 0%; margin-right: 0%; text-indent: 4%; font-size: 10pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', Times; color: #000000; background: transparent"> Although not technically a class action, in <i>In Re: Tobacco Litigation (Personal Injury Cases)</i>, a West Virginia state court consolidated approximately 750 individual smoker actions that were pending prior to 2001 for trial of certain common issues. In January 2002, the court severed Liggett from the trial of the consolidated action, which commenced in June 2010 and ended in a mistrial. A new trial is scheduled for October 17, 2011. If the case were to proceed against Liggett, it is estimated that Liggett could be a defendant in approximately 100 of the individual cases. </div> <div style="margin-top: 6pt; font-size: 1pt">  </div> <div align="left" style="margin-left: 0%; margin-right: 0%; text-indent: 4%; font-size: 10pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', Times; color: #000000; background: transparent"> In addition to the cases described above, numerous class actions remain certified against other cigarette manufacturers. Adverse decisions in these cases could have a material adverse affect on Liggett’s sales volume, operating income and cash flows. </div> <div style="margin-top: 12pt; font-size: 1pt">  </div> <div align="left" style="margin-left: 2%; margin-right: 0%; font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, Helvetica; color: #000000; background: transparent"> <i><font style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', Times">Health Care Cost Recovery Actions</font></i> </div> <div style="margin-top: 6pt; font-size: 1pt">  </div> <div align="left" style="margin-left: 0%; margin-right: 0%; text-indent: 4%; font-size: 10pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', Times; color: #000000; background: transparent"> As of December 31, 2010, there were four Health Care Cost Recovery Actions pending against Liggett. Other cigarette manufacturers are also named in these cases. The claims asserted in health care cost recovery actions vary. Although, typically, no specific damage amounts are pled, it is possible that requested damages might be in the billions of dollars. In these cases, plaintiffs typically assert equitable claims that the tobacco industry was “unjustly enriched” by their payment of health care costs allegedly attributable to smoking and seek reimbursement of those costs. Relief sought by some, but not all, plaintiffs include punitive damages, multiple damages and other statutory damages and penalties, injunctions prohibiting alleged marketing and sales to minors, disclosure of research, disgorgement of profits, funding of anti-smoking programs, additional disclosure of nicotine yields, and payment of attorney and expert witness fees. </div> <div style="margin-top: 6pt; font-size: 1pt">  </div> <div align="left" style="margin-left: 0%; margin-right: 0%; text-indent: 4%; font-size: 10pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', Times; color: #000000; background: transparent"> Other claims asserted include the equitable claim of indemnity, common law claims of negligence, strict liability, breach of express and implied warranty, breach of special duty, fraud, negligent misrepresentation, conspiracy, public nuisance, claims under state and federal statutes governing consumer fraud, antitrust, deceptive trade practices and false advertising, and claims under RICO. </div> <div style="margin-top: 6pt; font-size: 1pt">  </div> <div align="left" style="margin-left: 0%; margin-right: 0%; text-indent: 4%; font-size: 10pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', Times; color: #000000; background: transparent"> <i>DOJ Lawsuit.</i>  In September 1999, the United States government commenced litigation against Liggett and other cigarette manufacturers in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. The action sought to recover an unspecified amount of health care costs paid and to be paid by the federal government for lung cancer, heart disease, emphysema and other smoking-related illnesses allegedly caused by the fraudulent and tortious conduct of defendants, to restrain defendants and co-conspirators from engaging in alleged fraud and other allegedly unlawful conduct in the future, and to compel defendants to disgorge the proceeds of their unlawful conduct. Claims were asserted under RICO. </div> <div style="margin-top: 6pt; font-size: 1pt">  </div> <div align="left" style="margin-left: 0%; margin-right: 0%; text-indent: 4%; font-size: 10pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', Times; color: #000000; background: transparent"> In August 2006, the trial court entered a Final Judgment against each of the cigarette manufacturing defendants, except Liggett. In May 2009, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia affirmed most of the district court’s decision. In February 2010, the government and all defendants, other than Liggett, filed petitions for <i>writ of certiorari </i>to the United States Supreme Court. In June 2010, the United States Supreme Court, without comment, denied review. As a result, the cigarette manufacturing defendants, other than Liggett, are now subject to the trial court’s Final Judgment which ordered the following relief: (i) an injunction against “committing any act of racketeering” relating to the manufacturing, marketing, promotion, health consequences or sale of cigarettes in the United States; (ii) an injunction against participating directly or indirectly in the management or control of the Council for Tobacco Research, the Tobacco Institute, or the Center for Indoor Air Research, or any successor or affiliated entities of each (iii) an injunction against “making, or causing to be made in any way, any material false, misleading, or deceptive statement or representation or engaging in any public relations or marketing endeavor that is disseminated to the United States public and that misrepresents or suppresses information concerning cigarettes”; (iv) an injunction against conveying any express or implied health message though use of descriptors on cigarette packaging or in cigarette advertising or promotional material, including “lights,” “ultra lights,” and “low tar,” which the court found could cause consumers to believe one cigarette brand is less hazardous than another brand; (v) the issuance of “corrective statements” in various media regarding the adverse health effects of smoking, the addictiveness of smoking and nicotine, the lack of any significant health benefit from smoking “low tar” or “light” cigarettes, defendants’ manipulation of cigarette design to ensure optimum nicotine delivery and the adverse health effects of exposure to environmental tobacco smoke; (vi) the disclosure of defendants’ public document websites and the production of all documents produced to the government or produced in any future court or administrative action concerning smoking and health; (vii) the disclosure of disaggregated marketing data to the government in the same form and on the same schedules as defendants now follow in disclosing such data to the Federal Trade Commission for a period of ten years; (viii) certain restrictions on the sale or transfer by defendants of any cigarette brands, brand names, formulas or cigarette business within the United States; and (ix) payment of the government’s costs in bringing the action. </div> <div style="margin-top: 6pt; font-size: 1pt">  </div> <div align="left" style="margin-left: 0%; margin-right: 0%; text-indent: 4%; font-size: 10pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', Times; color: #000000; background: transparent"> It is unclear what impact, if any, the Final Judgment will have on the cigarette industry as a whole. To the extent that the Final Judgment leads to a decline in industry-wide shipments of cigarettes in the United States or otherwise results in restrictions that adversely affect the industry, Liggett’s sales volume, operating income and cash flows could be materially adversely affected. </div> <div style="margin-top: 6pt; font-size: 1pt">  </div> <div align="left" style="margin-left: 0%; margin-right: 0%; text-indent: 4%; font-size: 10pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', Times; color: #000000; background: transparent"> In <i>City of St. Louis v. American Tobacco Company</i>, a case pending in Missouri state court since December 1998, the City of St. Louis and approximately 38 hospitals and former hospitals seek recovery of costs expended by the hospitals on behalf of patients who suffer, or have suffered, from illnesses allegedly resulting from the use of cigarettes. In June 2005, the court granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment as to claims for damages which accrued prior to November 16, 1993. In April 2010, the court further determined that each plaintiff is barred from seeking damages which accrued more than five years prior to the time that that plaintiff joined the suit. In that same order, the court granted partial summary judgment for defendants barring plaintiffs’ claims for future damages. In July 2010, the court dismissed certain other claims brought by plaintiffs, on the grounds they were preempted. In October 2010, the trial court granted defendants summary judgment with respect to plaintiffs’ fraud and negligent misrepresentation claims. Trial commenced on January 31, 2011. </div> <div style="margin-top: 6pt; font-size: 1pt">  </div> <div align="left" style="margin-left: 0%; margin-right: 0%; text-indent: 4%; font-size: 10pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', Times; color: #000000; background: transparent"> In June 2005, the Jerusalem District Court in Israel added Liggett as a defendant in an action commenced in 1998 by the largest private insurer in that country, General Health Services, against the major United States cigarette manufacturers. The plaintiff seeks to recover the past and future value of the total expenditures for health care services provided to residents of Israel resulting from tobacco related diseases, court ordered interest for past expenditures from the date of filing the statement of claim, increased <font style="white-space: nowrap">and/or</font> punitive <font style="white-space: nowrap">and/or</font> exemplary damages and costs. The court ruled that, although Liggett had not sold product in Israel since at least 1978, it might still have liability for cigarettes sold prior to that time. Motions filed by defendants are pending. </div> <div style="margin-top: 6pt; font-size: 1pt">  </div> <div align="left" style="margin-left: 0%; margin-right: 0%; text-indent: 4%; font-size: 10pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', Times; color: #000000; background: transparent"> In May 2008, in <i>National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare v. Philip Morris USA, </i>a case pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, plaintiffs commenced an action to recover damages equal to twice the amount paid by Medicare for the smoking-related health care services provided from May 21, 2002 to the present, for which treatment defendants’ allegedly were required to make payment under the Medicare Secondary Payer provisions of the Social Security Act. In July 2008, defendants’ filed a motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ claims and plaintiffs filed a motion for partial summary judgment. In March 2009, the court granted defendants’ motion and dismissed the case. In May 2009, plaintiffs noticed an appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and in September 2010, the court vacated the District Court’s decision, and remanded the case with instructions for the District Court to dismiss the complaint on other grounds. Plaintiffs’ motion for rehearing was denied by the court and on December 20, 2010, the court remanded the case to the district court with instructions to dismiss the complaint. </div>  </div>   <div style="margin-left: 0%">  <div align="center" style="margin-left: 0%; margin-right: 0%; font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, Helvetica; color: #000000; background: transparent"> <b> <font style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', Times"> </font> </b> </div> <div style="margin-top: 0pt; font-size: 1pt"> </div> <div align="center" style="margin-left: 0%; margin-right: 0%; font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, Helvetica; color: #000000; background: transparent"> <b> <font style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', Times"> </font> </b> </div>  <div style="margin-top: 12pt; font-size: 1pt">  </div> <div align="left" style="margin-left: 2%; margin-right: 0%; font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, Helvetica; color: #000000; background: transparent"> <i><font style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', Times">Upcoming Trials</font></i> </div> <div style="margin-top: 6pt; font-size: 1pt">  </div> <div align="left" style="margin-left: 0%; margin-right: 0%; text-indent: 4%; font-size: 10pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', Times; color: #000000; background: transparent"> In addition to the January 2011 trial in the <i>City of St. Louis </i>case and the May 2011 trial in the <i>Brown </i>case, both discussed above, as of December 31, 2010, there were 43 <i>Engle </i>progeny cases scheduled for trial in 2011. Additionally, a Florida individual case is scheduled for trial on September 12, 2011. The Company <font style="white-space: nowrap">and/or</font> Liggett and other cigarette manufacturers are currently named as defendants in each of these cases, although as a case proceeds, one or more defendants may ultimately be dismissed from the action. Cases against other cigarette manufacturers are also currently scheduled for trial in 2011. Trial dates are subject to change. </div> <div style="margin-top: 12pt; font-size: 1pt">  </div> <div align="left" style="margin-left: 2%; margin-right: 0%; font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, Helvetica; color: #000000; background: transparent"> <i><font style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', Times">MSA and Other State Settlement Agreements</font></i> </div> <div style="margin-top: 6pt; font-size: 1pt">  </div> <div align="left" style="margin-left: 0%; margin-right: 0%; text-indent: 4%; font-size: 10pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', Times; color: #000000; background: transparent"> In March 1996, March 1997 and March 1998, Liggett entered into settlements of smoking-related litigation with 45 states and territories. The settlements released Liggett from all smoking-related claims made by those states and territories, including claims for health care cost reimbursement and claims concerning sales of cigarettes to minors. </div> <div style="margin-top: 6pt; font-size: 1pt">  </div> <div align="left" style="margin-left: 0%; margin-right: 0%; text-indent: 4%; font-size: 10pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', Times; color: #000000; background: transparent"> In November 1998, Philip Morris, Brown & Williamson, R.J. Reynolds and Lorillard (the “Original Participating Manufacturers” or “OPMs”) and Liggett (together with any other tobacco product manufacturer that becomes a signatory, the “Subsequent Participating Manufacturers” or “SPMs”) (the OPMs and SPMs are hereinafter referred to jointly as the “Participating Manufacturers”) entered into the Master Settlement Agreement (the “MSA”) with 46 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Guam, the United States Virgin Islands, American Samoa and the Northern Mariana Islands (collectively, the “Settling States”) to settle the asserted and unasserted health care cost recovery and certain other claims of the Settling States. The MSA received final judicial approval in each Settling State. </div> <div style="margin-top: 6pt; font-size: 1pt">  </div> <div align="left" style="margin-left: 0%; margin-right: 0%; text-indent: 4%; font-size: 10pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', Times; color: #000000; background: transparent"> As a result of the MSA, the Settling States released Liggett from: </div> <div style="margin-top: 6pt; font-size: 1pt">  </div> <table width="100%" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" style="text-align: left"> <tr> <td width="4%"></td> <td width="2%"></td> <td width="94%"></td> </tr> <tr valign="top" style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', Times; color: #000000; background: transparent"> <td> </td> <td> •  </td> <td align="left"> all claims of the Settling States and their respective political subdivisions and other recipients of state health care funds, relating to: (i) past conduct arising out of the use, sale, distribution, manufacture, development, advertising and marketing of tobacco products; (ii) the health effects of, the exposure to, or research, statements or warnings about, tobacco products; and </td> </tr> <tr style="line-height: 6pt; font-size: 1pt"> <td> </td> </tr> <tr valign="top" style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', Times; color: #000000; background: transparent"> <td> </td> <td> •  </td> <td align="left"> all monetary claims of the Settling States and their respective subdivisions and other recipients of state health care funds relating to future conduct arising out of the use of, or exposure to, tobacco products that have been manufactured in the ordinary course of business. </td> </tr> </table> <div style="margin-top: 6pt; font-size: 1pt">  </div> <div align="left" style="margin-left: 0%; margin-right: 0%; text-indent: 4%; font-size: 10pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', Times; color: #000000; background: transparent"> The MSA restricts tobacco product advertising and marketing within the Settling States and otherwise restricts the activities of Participating Manufacturers. Among other things, the MSA prohibits the targeting of youth in the advertising, promotion or marketing of tobacco products; bans the use of cartoon characters in all tobacco advertising and promotion; limits each Participating Manufacturer to one tobacco brand name sponsorship during any <font style="white-space: nowrap">12-month</font> period; bans all outdoor advertising, with certain limited exceptions; prohibits payments for tobacco product placement in various media; bans gift offers based on the purchase of tobacco products without sufficient proof that the intended recipient is an adult; prohibits Participating Manufacturers from licensing third parties to advertise tobacco brand names in any manner prohibited under the MSA; and prohibits Participating Manufacturers from using as a tobacco product brand name any nationally recognized non-tobacco brand or trade name or the names of sports teams, entertainment groups or individual celebrities. </div> <div style="margin-top: 6pt; font-size: 1pt">  </div> <div align="left" style="margin-left: 0%; margin-right: 0%; text-indent: 4%; font-size: 10pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', Times; color: #000000; background: transparent"> The MSA also requires Participating Manufacturers to affirm corporate principles to comply with the MSA and to reduce underage use of tobacco products and imposes restrictions on lobbying activities conducted on behalf of Participating Manufacturers. In addition, the MSA provides for the appointment of an independent auditor to calculate and determine the amounts of payments owed pursuant to the MSA. </div> <div style="margin-top: 6pt; font-size: 1pt">  </div> <div align="left" style="margin-left: 0%; margin-right: 0%; text-indent: 4%; font-size: 10pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', Times; color: #000000; background: transparent"> Under the payment provisions of the MSA, the Participating Manufacturers are required to make annual payments of $9,000,000 (subject to applicable adjustments, offsets and reductions). These annual payments are allocated based on unit volume of domestic cigarette shipments. The payment obligations under the MSA are the several, and not joint, obligation of each Participating Manufacturer and are not the responsibility of any parent or affiliate of a Participating Manufacturer. </div> <div style="margin-top: 6pt; font-size: 1pt">  </div> <div align="left" style="margin-left: 0%; margin-right: 0%; text-indent: 4%; font-size: 10pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', Times; color: #000000; background: transparent"> Liggett has no payment obligations under the MSA except to the extent its market share exceeds a market share exemption of approximately 1.65% of total cigarettes sold in the United States. Vector Tobacco has no payment obligations under the MSA except to the extent its market share exceeds a market share exemption of approximately 0.28% of total cigarettes sold in the United States. For years ended December 31, 2010, 2009 and 2008, Liggett and Vector Tobacco’s domestic shipments accounted for approximately 3.5%, 2.7% and 2.5%, respectively, of the total cigarettes sold in the United States. If Liggett’s or Vector Tobacco’s market share exceeds their respective market share exemption in a given year, then on April 15 of the following year, Liggett <font style="white-space: nowrap">and/or</font> Vector Tobacco, as the case may be, must pay on each excess unit an amount equal (on a <font style="white-space: nowrap">per-unit</font> basis) to that due from the OPMs for that year. On December 31, 2010, Liggett and Vector Tobacco paid $96,500 of their approximately $140,400 2010 MSA payment obligations. </div> <div style="margin-top: 12pt; font-size: 1pt">  </div> <div align="left" style="margin-left: 2%; margin-right: 0%; font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, Helvetica; color: #000000; background: transparent"> <i><font style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', Times">Certain MSA Disputes</font></i> </div> <div style="margin-top: 6pt; font-size: 1pt">  </div> <div align="left" style="margin-left: 0%; margin-right: 0%; text-indent: 4%; font-size: 10pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', Times; color: #000000; background: transparent"> <i>NPM Adjustment.</i>  In March 2006, an economic consulting firm selected pursuant to the MSA determined that the MSA was a “significant factor contributing to” the loss of market share of Participating Manufacturers, to non-participating manufacturers, for 2003. This is known as the “NPM Adjustment.” The economic consulting firm subsequently rendered the same decision with respect to 2004 and 2005. In March 2009, a different economic consulting firm made the same determination for 2006. As a result, the manufacturers are entitled to potential NPM Adjustments to their 2003, 2004, 2005 and 2006 MSA payments. The Participating Manufacturers may also be entitled to potential NPM Adjustments to their 2007, 2008 and 2009 payments pursuant to an agreement entered into in June 2009 between the OPMs and the Settling States under which the OPMs agreed to make certain payments for the benefit of the Settling States, in exchange for which the Settling States stipulated that the MSA was a “significant factor contributing to” the loss of market share of Participating Manufacturers in 2007, 2008 and 2009. A Settling State that has diligently enforced its qualifying escrow statute in the year in question may be able to avoid application of the NPM Adjustment to the payments made by the manufacturers for the benefit of that Settling State. </div> <div style="margin-top: 6pt; font-size: 1pt">  </div> <div align="left" style="margin-left: 0%; margin-right: 0%; text-indent: 4%; font-size: 10pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', Times; color: #000000; background: transparent"> For 2003 – 2010, Liggett and Vector Tobacco, as applicable, disputed that they owed the Settling States the NPM Adjustments as calculated by the Independent Auditor. As permitted by the MSA, Liggett and Vector Tobacco withheld payment associated with these NPM Adjustment amounts. The total amount withheld or paid into a disputed payment account by Liggett and Vector Tobacco for 2003 – 2010 was $29,236. For 2003, Liggett and Vector Tobacco paid the NPM adjustment amount of $9,345 to the Settling States although both companies continue to dispute this amount is owed. At December 31, 2010, included in “Other assets” on the Company’s condensed consolidated balance sheet was a noncurrent receivable of $6,542 relating to such payment. </div> <div style="margin-top: 6pt; font-size: 1pt">  </div> <div align="left" style="margin-left: 0%; margin-right: 0%; text-indent: 4%; font-size: 10pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', Times; color: #000000; background: transparent"> The following amounts have not been expensed by the Company as they relate to Liggett and Vector Tobacco’s NPM Adjustment claims for 2003 – 2005: $6,542 for 2003, $3,789 for 2004 and $800 for 2005. Liggett and Vector Tobacco have expensed all disputed amounts related to the NPM Adjustment since 2005. </div> <div style="margin-top: 6pt; font-size: 1pt">  </div> <div align="left" style="margin-left: 0%; margin-right: 0%; text-indent: 4%; font-size: 10pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', Times; color: #000000; background: transparent"> Since April 2006, notwithstanding provisions in the MSA requiring arbitration, litigation was filed in 49 Settling States over the issue of whether the application of the NPM Adjustment for 2003 is to be determined through litigation or arbitration. These actions relate to the potential NPM Adjustment for 2003, which the independent auditor under the MSA previously determined to be as much as $1,200,000 for all Participating Manufacturers. All but one of the 48 courts that have decided the issue have ruled that the 2003 NPM Adjustment dispute is arbitrable. All 47 of those decisions are final. One court, the Montana Supreme Court, ruled that Montana’s claim of diligent enforcement must be litigated. The United States Supreme Court denied <i>certiorari </i>with respect to that opinion. In response to a proposal from the OPMs and many of the SPMs, 45 of the Settling States, representing approximately 90% of the allocable share of the Settling States, entered into an agreement providing for a nationwide arbitration of the dispute with respect to the NPM Adjustment for 2003. In June 2010, the three person arbitration panel was selected and procedural hearings, discovery and briefing on legal issues of general application have commenced. Because states representing more than 80% of the allocable share signed the agreement, signing states will receive a 20% reduction of any potential 2003 NPM adjustment. There can be no assurance that Liggett or Vector Tobacco will receive any adjustment as a result of these proceedings. </div> <div style="margin-top: 6pt; font-size: 1pt">  </div> <div align="left" style="margin-left: 0%; margin-right: 0%; text-indent: 4%; font-size: 10pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', Times; color: #000000; background: transparent"> <i>Gross v. Net Calculations.</i>  In October 2004, the independent auditor notified Liggett and all other Participating Manufacturers that their payment obligations under the MSA, dating from the agreement’s execution in late 1998, had been recalculated using “net” unit amounts, rather than “gross” unit amounts (which had been used since 1999). </div> <div style="margin-top: 6pt; font-size: 1pt">  </div> <div align="left" style="margin-left: 0%; margin-right: 0%; text-indent: 4%; font-size: 10pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', Times; color: #000000; background: transparent"> Liggett objected to this retroactive change and disputed the change in methodology. Liggett contends that the retroactive change from “gross” to “net” unit amounts is impermissible for several reasons, including: </div> <div style="margin-top: 6pt; font-size: 1pt">  </div> <table width="100%" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" style="text-align: left"> <tr> <td width="4%"></td> <td width="2%"></td> <td width="94%"></td> </tr> <tr valign="top" style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', Times; color: #000000; background: transparent"> <td> </td> <td> •  </td> <td align="left"> use of “net” unit amounts is not required by the MSA (as reflected by, among other things, the use of “gross” unit amounts through 2005); </td> </tr> <tr style="line-height: 6pt; font-size: 1pt"> <td> </td> </tr> <tr valign="top" style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', Times; color: #000000; background: transparent"> <td> </td> <td> •  </td> <td align="left"> such a change is not authorized without the consent of affected parties to the MSA; </td> </tr> <tr style="line-height: 6pt; font-size: 1pt"> <td> </td> </tr> <tr valign="top" style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', Times; color: #000000; background: transparent"> <td> </td> <td> •  </td> <td align="left"> the MSA provides for four-year time limitation periods for revisiting calculations and determinations, which precludes recalculating Liggett’s 1997 Market Share (and thus, Liggett’s market share exemption); and </td> </tr> <tr style="line-height: 6pt; font-size: 1pt"> <td> </td> </tr> <tr valign="top" style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', Times; color: #000000; background: transparent"> <td> </td> <td> •  </td> <td align="left"> Liggett and others have relied upon the calculations based on “gross” unit amounts since 1998. </td> </tr> </table> <div style="margin-top: 6pt; font-size: 1pt">  </div> <div align="left" style="margin-left: 0%; margin-right: 0%; text-indent: 4%; font-size: 10pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', Times; color: #000000; background: transparent"> The change in the method of calculation could result in Liggett owing, at a minimum, approximately $9,300, plus interest, of additional MSA payments for prior years, because the proposed change from “gross” to “net” units would serve to lower Liggett’s market share exemption under the MSA. The Company estimates that Liggett’s future MSA payments would be at least approximately $2,300 higher if the method of calculation is changed. No amounts have been expensed or accrued in the accompanying condensed consolidated financial statements for any potential liability relating to the “gross” versus “net” dispute. There can be no assurance that Liggett will not be required to make additional payments, which payments could adversely affect the Company’s consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows. </div> <div style="margin-top: 6pt; font-size: 1pt">  </div> <div align="left" style="margin-left: 0%; margin-right: 0%; text-indent: 4%; font-size: 10pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', Times; color: #000000; background: transparent"> <i>Litigation Challenging the MSA.</i>  In <i>Freedom Holdings Inc. v. Cuomo</i>, litigation pending in federal court in New York, certain importers of cigarettes allege that the MSA and certain related New York statutes violate federal antitrust and constitutional law. The district court granted New York’s motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that if all of the allegations of the complaint were assumed to be true, plaintiffs had stated a claim for relief on antitrust grounds. In January 2009, the district court granted New York’s motion for summary judgment, dismissing all claims brought by the plaintiffs, and dissolving the preliminary injunction. Plaintiffs appealed the decision. In October 2010, the Second Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision. </div> <div style="margin-top: 6pt; font-size: 1pt">  </div> <div align="left" style="margin-left: 0%; margin-right: 0%; text-indent: 4%; font-size: 10pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', Times; color: #000000; background: transparent"> In <i>Grand River Enterprises Six Nations, Ltd. v. King</i>, another proceeding pending in federal court in New York, plaintiffs seek to enjoin the statutes enacted by New York and other states in connection with the MSA on the grounds that the statutes violate the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution and federal antitrust laws. In September 2005, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that if all of the allegations of the complaint were assumed to be true, plaintiffs had stated a claim for relief and that the New York federal court had jurisdiction over the other defendant states. On remand, the trial court held that plaintiffs are unlikely to succeed on the merits. After discovery, the parties cross-moved for summary judgment; briefing concluded in December 2009 and oral argument took place in April 2010. </div> <div style="margin-top: 6pt; font-size: 1pt">  </div> <div align="left" style="margin-left: 0%; margin-right: 0%; text-indent: 4%; font-size: 10pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', Times; color: #000000; background: transparent"> Similar challenges to the MSA and MSA-related state statutes are pending in several other states. Liggett and the other cigarette manufacturers are not defendants in these cases. Litigation challenging the validity of the MSA, including claims that the MSA violates antitrust laws, has not been successful to date. </div>  </div>   <div style="margin-left: 0%">  <div align="center" style="margin-left: 0%; margin-right: 0%; font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, Helvetica; color: #000000; background: transparent"> <b> <font style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', Times"> </font> </b> </div> <div style="margin-top: 0pt; font-size: 1pt"> </div> <div align="center" style="margin-left: 0%; margin-right: 0%; font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, Helvetica; color: #000000; background: transparent"> <b> <font style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', Times"> </font> </b> </div>  <div style="margin-top: 6pt; font-size: 1pt">  </div> <div align="left" style="margin-left: 0%; margin-right: 0%; text-indent: 4%; font-size: 10pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', Times; color: #000000; background: transparent"> In October 2008, Vibo Corporation, Inc., d/b/a General Tobacco (“Vibo”) commenced litigation in the United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky against each of the Settling States and certain Participating Manufacturers, including Liggett and Vector Tobacco. Vibo sought damages from Participating Manufacturers under antitrust laws. Vibo alleged, among other things, that the market share exemptions (i.e., grandfathered shares) provided to certain SPMs under the MSA, including Liggett and Vector Tobacco, violate federal antitrust and constitutional law. In January 2009, the district court dismissed the complaint. In January 2010, the court entered final judgment in favor of the defendants. Vibo appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. A decision is pending. </div> <div style="margin-top: 6pt; font-size: 1pt">  </div> <div align="left" style="margin-left: 0%; margin-right: 0%; text-indent: 4%; font-size: 10pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', Times; color: #000000; background: transparent"> <i>Other State Settlements.</i>  The MSA replaces Liggett’s prior settlements with all states and territories except for Florida, Mississippi, Texas and Minnesota. Each of these four states, prior to the effective date of the MSA, negotiated and executed settlement agreements with each of the other major tobacco companies, separate from those settlements reached previously with Liggett. Liggett’s agreements with these states remain in full force and effect, subject to the changes with Minnesota and Florida discussed below. These states’ settlement agreements with Liggett contained most favored nation provisions which could reduce Liggett’s payment obligations based on subsequent settlements or resolutions by those states with certain other tobacco companies. Beginning in 1999, Liggett determined that, based on each of these four states’ settlements with United States Tobacco Company, Liggett’s payment obligations to those states had been eliminated. With respect to all non-economic obligations under the previous settlements, Liggett believes it is entitled to the most favorable provisions as between the MSA and each state’s respective settlement with the other major tobacco companies. Therefore, Liggett’s non-economic obligations to all states and territories are now defined by the MSA. </div> <div style="margin-top: 6pt; font-size: 1pt">  </div> <div align="left" style="margin-left: 0%; margin-right: 0%; text-indent: 4%; font-size: 10pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', Times; color: #000000; background: transparent"> In 2003, in order to resolve any issues with Minnesota as to Liggett’s ongoing economic settlement obligations, Liggett agreed to pay $100 a year to Minnesota, to be paid any year cigarettes manufactured by Liggett are sold in that state. In 2003 and 2004, the Attorneys General for Florida, Mississippi and Texas advised Liggett that they believed that Liggett had failed to make certain required payments under the respective settlement agreements with these states. Liggett believes it is not obligated to make any further payments to these states, based, among other things, on the language of the most favored nation provisions of the respective settlement agreements. In December 2010, Liggett settled with Florida and agreed to pay Florida $1,200 and to make further payments of $250 per year for a period of 21 years. The payments in years 12 – 21 will be subject to an inflation adjustment. These payments are in lieu of any other payments allegedly due to Florida under the settlement agreement. The Company accrued approximately $3,200 for this matter. There can be no assurance that Liggett will be able to resolve the matters with Texas and Mississippi or that Liggett will not be required to make additional payments which could adversely affect the Company’s consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows. </div> <div style="margin-top: 6pt; font-size: 1pt">  </div> <div align="left" style="margin-left: 0%; margin-right: 0%; text-indent: 4%; font-size: 10pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', Times; color: #000000; background: transparent"> <i>Cautionary Statement.</i>  Management is not able to predict the outcome of the litigation pending or threatened against Liggett. Litigation is subject to many uncertainties. For example, the jury in the <i>Lukacs </i>case, an <i>Engle </i>progeny case tried in 2002, awarded $24,835 in compensatory damages plus interest against Liggett and two other defendants and found Liggett 50% responsible for the damages. The verdict was affirmed on appeal and Liggett paid $14,361 in June 2010. To date, Liggett has been found liable in four other <i>Engle </i>progeny cases, which are currently on appeal. As a result of the <i>Engle </i>decision, over 9,100 plaintiffs have claims pending against the Company and Liggett and other cigarette manufacturers. It is possible that other cases could be decided unfavorably against Liggett and that Liggett will be unsuccessful on appeal. Liggett may enter into discussions in an attempt to settle particular cases if it believes it is in its best interest to do so. </div> <div style="margin-top: 6pt; font-size: 1pt">  </div> <div align="left" style="margin-left: 0%; margin-right: 0%; text-indent: 4%; font-size: 10pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', Times; color: #000000; background: transparent"> Management cannot predict the cash requirements related to any future defense costs, settlements or judgments, including cash required to bond any appeals, and there is a risk that those requirements will not be able to be met. An unfavorable outcome of a pending smoking and health case could encourage the commencement of additional similar litigation, or could lead to multiple adverse decisions in the <i>Engle </i>progeny cases. Management is unable to make a reasonable estimate with respect to the amount or range of loss that could result from an unfavorable outcome of the cases pending against Liggett or the costs of defending such cases and as a result has not provided any amounts in its condensed consolidated financial statements for unfavorable outcomes. The complaints filed in these cases rarely detail alleged damages. Typically, the claims set forth in an individual’s complaint against the tobacco industry seek money damages in an amount to be determined by a jury, plus punitive damages, costs and legal fees. </div> <div style="margin-top: 6pt; font-size: 1pt">  </div> <div align="left" style="margin-left: 0%; margin-right: 0%; text-indent: 4%; font-size: 10pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', Times; color: #000000; background: transparent"> The tobacco industry is subject to a wide range of laws and regulations regarding the marketing, sale, taxation and use of tobacco products imposed by local, state and federal governments. There have been a number of restrictive regulatory actions, adverse legislative and political decisions and other unfavorable developments concerning cigarette smoking and the tobacco industry. These developments may negatively affect the perception of potential triers of fact with respect to the tobacco industry, possibly to the detriment of certain pending litigation, and may prompt the commencement of additional litigation or legislation. </div> <div style="margin-top: 6pt; font-size: 1pt">  </div> <div align="left" style="margin-left: 0%; margin-right: 0%; text-indent: 4%; font-size: 10pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', Times; color: #000000; background: transparent"> It is possible that the Company’s consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows could be materially adversely affected by an unfavorable outcome in any of the smoking-related litigation. </div> <div style="margin-top: 6pt; font-size: 1pt">  </div> <div align="left" style="margin-left: 0%; margin-right: 0%; text-indent: 4%; font-size: 10pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', Times; color: #000000; background: transparent"> Liggett’s and Vector Tobacco’s management are unaware of any material environmental conditions affecting their existing facilities. Liggett’s and Vector Tobacco’s management believe that current operations are conducted in material compliance with all environmental laws and regulations and other laws and regulations governing cigarette manufacturers. Compliance with federal, state and local provisions regulating the discharge of materials into the environment, or otherwise relating to the protection of the environment, has not had a material effect on the capital expenditures, results of operations or competitive position of Liggett or Vector Tobacco. </div> <div style="margin-top: 12pt; font-size: 1pt">  </div> <div align="left" style="margin-left: 2%; margin-right: 0%; font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, Helvetica; color: #000000; background: transparent"> <b><i><u><font style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', Times">Other Matters</font></u><font style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', Times">:</font></i></b> </div> <div style="margin-top: 6pt; font-size: 1pt">  </div> <div align="left" style="margin-left: 0%; margin-right: 0%; text-indent: 4%; font-size: 10pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', Times; color: #000000; background: transparent"> In February 2004, Liggett Vector Brands and another cigarette manufacturer entered into a five year agreement with a subsidiary of the American Wholesale Marketers Association to support a program to permit certain tobacco distributors to secure, on reasonable terms, tax stamp bonds required by state and local governments for the distribution of cigarettes. This agreement has been extended through February 2014. Under the agreement, Liggett Vector Brands has agreed to pay a portion of losses, if any, incurred by the surety under the bond program, with a maximum loss exposure of $500 for Liggett Vector Brands. To secure its potential obligations under the agreement, Liggett Vector Brands has delivered to the subsidiary of the association a $100 letter of credit and agreed to fund up to an additional $400. Liggett Vector Brands has incurred no losses to date under this agreement, and the Company believes the fair value of Liggett Vector Brands’ obligation under the agreement was immaterial at December 31, 2010. </div> <div style="margin-top: 6pt; font-size: 1pt">  </div> <div align="left" style="margin-left: 0%; margin-right: 0%; text-indent: 4%; font-size: 10pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', Times; color: #000000; background: transparent"> In December 2009, a complaint was filed against Liggett in Alabama state court by the estate of a woman who died, in 2007, in a house fire allegedly caused by the ignition of contents of the house by a Liggett cigarette. The plaintiff sued under the Alabama Extended Manufacturers Liability Doctrine and for breach of warranty and negligence. The plaintiff sought both compensatory and punitive damages. In January 2010, Liggett removed the case to federal court. In February 2010, Liggett filed a motion to dismiss the case and plaintiff filed a motion to remand. In September 2010, the court granted plaintiff’s motion to remand, but the order was stayed pending non-binding mediation of the dispute, which occurred in January 2011. The matter was settled for $30. </div> <div style="margin-top: 6pt; font-size: 1pt">  </div> <div align="left" style="margin-left: 0%; margin-right: 0%; text-indent: 4%; font-size: 10pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', Times; color: #000000; background: transparent"> There may be several other proceedings, lawsuits and claims pending against the Company and certain of its consolidated subsidiaries unrelated to tobacco or tobacco product liability. Management is of the opinion that the liabilities, if any, ultimately resulting from such other proceedings, lawsuits and claims should not materially affect the Company’s financial position, results of operations or cash flows. </div>  </div>   <div style="margin-left: 0%">  <div align="center" style="margin-left: 0%; margin-right: 0%; font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, Helvetica; color: #000000; background: transparent"> <b> <font style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', Times"> </font> </b> </div> <div style="margin-top: 0pt; font-size: 1pt"> </div> <div align="center" style="margin-left: 0%; margin-right: 0%; font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, Helvetica; color: #000000; background: transparent"> <b> <font style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', Times"> </font> </b> </div> <div style="margin-top: 0pt; font-size: 1pt"> </div>  </div>  <!-- Begin Block Tagged NotefalsefalsefalsefalsefalseOtherus-types:textBlockItemTypestringIncludes 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 falsefalseCONTINGENCIES12ContingenciesUnKnownUnKnownUnKnownUnKnownfalsetrue