Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

(Continued)

Note 18.
Contingencies:

(Continued)

Health Care Cost Recovery Litigation

Overview: In health care cost recovery litigation, domestic and foreign governmental entities and non-governmental plaintiffs seek reimbursement of health care cost expenditures allegedly caused by tobacco products and, in some cases, of future expenditures and damages as well. Relief sought by some but not all plaintiffs includes 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.

The claims asserted include the claim that cigarette manufacturers were “unjustly enriched” by plaintiffs’ payment of health care costs allegedly attributable to smoking, as well as claims of indemnity, negligence, strict liability, breach of express and implied warranty, violation of a voluntary undertaking or special duty, fraud, negligent misrepresentation, conspiracy, public nuisance, claims under federal and state statutes governing consumer fraud, antitrust, deceptive trade practices and false advertising, and claims under federal and state anti-racketeering statutes.

Defenses raised include lack of proximate cause, remoteness of injury, failure to state a valid claim, lack of benefit, adequate remedy at law, “unclean hands” (namely, that plaintiffs cannot obtain equitable relief because they participated in, and benefited from, the sale of cigarettes), lack of antitrust standing and injury, federal preemption, lack of statutory authority to bring suit, and statutes of limitations. In addition, defendants argue that they should be entitled to “set off” any alleged damages to the extent the plaintiff benefits economically from the sale of cigarettes through the receipt of excise taxes or otherwise. Defendants also argue that these cases are improper because plaintiffs must proceed under principles of subrogation and assignment. Under traditional theories of recovery, a payor of medical costs (such as an insurer) can seek recovery of health care costs from a third party solely by “standing in the shoes” of the injured party. Defendants argue that plaintiffs should be required to bring any actions as subrogees of individual health care recipients and should be subject to all defenses available against the injured party.

Although there have been some decisions to the contrary, most judicial decisions have dismissed all or most health care cost recovery claims against cigarette manufacturers. Nine federal circuit courts of appeals and four state intermediate appellate courts, relying primarily on grounds that plaintiffs’ claims were too remote, have ordered or affirmed dismissals of health care cost recovery actions. The United States Supreme Court has refused to consider plaintiffs’ appeals from the cases decided by five circuit courts of appeals.

A number of foreign governmental entities have filed health care cost recovery actions in the United States. Such suits have been brought in the United States by 13 countries, a Canadian province, 11 Brazilian states and 11 Brazilian cities. Thirty-two of the cases have been dismissed, and four remain pending. In addition to the cases brought in the United States, health care cost recovery actions have also been brought in Israel, the Marshall Islands (dismissed), Canada, France and Spain, and other entities have stated that they are considering filing such actions. In September 2003, the case pending in France was dismissed, and plaintiff has appealed.

In March 1999, in the first health care cost recovery case to go to trial, an Ohio jury returned a verdict in favor of defendants on all counts. In June 2001, a New York jury returned a verdict awarding $6.83 million in compensatory damages against PM USA and a total of $11 million against four other defendants in a health care cost recovery action brought by a Blue Cross and Blue Shield plan, and defendants, including PM USA appealed. See the discussion of the Empire Blue Cross and Blue Shield case above under the heading Recent Trial Results for the post-trial developments in this case.

Settlements of Health Care Cost Recovery Litigation: In November 1998, PM USA and certain other United States tobacco product 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 Marianas to settle asserted and unasserted health care cost recovery and other claims. PM USA and certain other United States tobacco product manufacturers had previously settled similar claims brought by Mississippi, Florida, Texas and Minnesota (together with the MSA, the “State Settlement Agreements”). The State Settlement Agreements require that the domestic tobacco industry make substantial annual payments in the following amounts (excluding future annual payments contemplated by the agreement with tobacco growers discussed below), subject to adjustments for several factors, including inflation, market share and industry volume: 2004 through 2007, $8.4 billion each year; and, thereafter, $9.4 billion each year. In addition, the domestic tobacco industry is required to pay settling plaintiffs’ attorneys’ fees, subject to an annual cap of $500 million. PM USA’s portion of ongoing adjusted payments and legal fees is based on its relative share of the settling manufacturers’ domestic cigarette shipments, including roll-your-own cigarettes, in the year preceding that in which the payment is due. PM USA records its portions of ongoing settlement payments as part of cost of sales as product is shipped. These payment obligations are the several and not joint obligations of each of the settling defendants.

The State Settlement Agreements also include provisions relating to advertising and marketing restrictions, public disclosure of certain industry documents, limitations on challenges to certain tobacco control and underage use laws, restrictions on lobbying activities and other provisions.

As part of the MSA, the settling defendants committed to work cooperatively with the tobacco-growing states to address concerns about the potential adverse economic impact of the MSA on tobacco growers and quota-holders. To that end, four of the major domestic tobacco product manufacturers, including PM USA, and the grower states, have established a trust fund to provide aid to tobacco growers and quota-holders. The trust will be funded by these four manufacturers over 12 years with payments, prior to application of various adjustments, scheduled to total $5.15 billion. Future industry payments (2004 through 2008, $500 million each year; 2009 and 2010, $295 million each year) are subject to adjustment for several factors, including inflation, United States cigarette volume and certain contingent events, and, in general are to be allocated based on each manufacturer’s relative market share. PM USA records its portion of these payments as part of cost of sales as product is shipped.

The State Settlement Agreements have materially adversely affected the volumes of PM USA and ALG believes that they may also materially adversely affect the results of operations, cash flows or financial position of PM USA and Altria Group, Inc. in future periods. The degree of the adverse impact will depend on, among other things, the rate of decline in United States cigarette sales in the premium and discount segments, PM USA’s share of the domestic premium and discount cigarette segments, and the effect of any resulting cost advantage of manufacturers not subject to the MSA and the other State Settlement Agreements.

Two cases are pending in New York and Pennsylvania in which plaintiffs challenge the validity of the MSA and allege that the MSA violates antitrust laws. In the case pending in New York, in which PM USA is a defendant, defendants’ motions to dismiss have been granted in part and denied in part. In July 2003, an appellate court affirmed the dismissal of the case in Pennsylvania, and plaintiffs have petitioned the United States Supreme Court for further review.

Federal Government’s Lawsuit: In 1999, the United States government filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia against various cigarette manufacturers and others, including PM USA and ALG, asserting claims under three federal statutes, the Medical Care Recovery Act (“MCRA”), the Medicare Secondary Payer (“MSP”) provisions of the Social Security Act and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”). The lawsuit seeks to recover an unspecified amount of health care costs for tobacco-related illnesses allegedly caused by defendants’ fraudulent and tortious conduct and paid for by the government under various federal health care programs, including Medicare, military and veterans’ health benefits programs, and the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program. The complaint alleges that such costs total more than $20 billion annually. It also seeks what it alleges to be equitable and declaratory relief, including disgorgement of profits which arose from defendants’ allegedly tortious conduct, an injunction prohibiting certain actions by the defendants, and a declaration that the defendants are liable for the federal government’s future costs of providing health care resulting from defendants’ alleged past tortious and wrongful conduct. PM USA and ALG moved to dismiss this lawsuit on numerous grounds, including that the statutes invoked by the government do not provide a basis for the relief sought. In September 2000, the trial court dismissed the government’s MCRA and MSP claims, but permitted discovery to proceed on the government’s claims for relief under RICO. In January 2003, the government and defendants submitted preliminary proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law; rebuttals were filed in April. The government alleges that disgorgement by defendants of approximately $280 billion is an appropriate remedy. In May 2003, the court denied defendants’ motion for partial summary judgment seeking to dismiss the claims related to advertising, marketing, promotions and health warnings. Additional motions for summary judgment have been filed by the government and defendants. In January 2004, the court granted one of the government’s pending motions and dismissed certain equitable defenses of defendants. The remaining motions for summary judgment filed by the government and defendants are still pending. Trial of the case is currently scheduled for September 2004.