Pending claims related to tobacco products generally fall within the following categories:
Smoking and Health Litigation: These cases primarily allege personal injury and are brought by individual plaintiffs or on behalf of a class or purported class of individual plaintiffs. Plaintiffs' allegations of liability in these cases are based on various theories of recovery, including negligence, gross negligence, strict liability, fraud, misrepresentation, design defect, failure to warn, breach of express and implied warranties, violations of deceptive trade practice laws and consumer protection statutes. Plaintiffs in these cases seek various forms of relief, including compensatory and other damages, and injunctive and equitable relief. Defenses raised in these cases include licit activity, failure to state a claim, lack of defect, lack of proximate cause, assumption of the risk, contributory negligence, and statute of limitations.
As of December 31, 2013, there were a number of smoking and health cases pending against us, our subsidiaries or indemnitees, as follows:
| |
• | 62 cases brought by individual plaintiffs in Argentina (24), Brazil (24), Canada (2), Chile (4), Costa Rica (2), Greece (1), Italy (3), the Philippines (1) and Scotland (1), compared with 76 such cases on December 31, 2012, and 75 cases on December 31, 2011; and |
| |
• | 11 cases brought on behalf of classes of individual plaintiffs in Brazil (2) and Canada (9), compared with 11 such cases on December 31, 2012 and 10 such cases on December 31, 2011. |
In the first class action pending in Brazil, The Smoker Health Defense Association (ADESF) v. Souza Cruz, S.A. and Philip Morris Marketing, S.A., Nineteenth Lower Civil Court of the Central Courts of the Judiciary District of São Paulo, Brazil, filed July 25, 1995, our subsidiary and another member of the industry are defendants. The plaintiff, a consumer organization, is seeking damages for smokers and former smokers and injunctive relief. The verdict and post-trial developments in this case are described in the above table.
In the second class action pending in Brazil, Public Prosecutor of São Paulo v. Philip Morris Brasil Industria e Comercio Ltda., Civil Court of the City of São Paulo, Brazil, filed August 6, 2007, our subsidiary is a defendant. The plaintiff, the Public Prosecutor of the State of São Paulo, is seeking (i) damages on behalf of all smokers nationwide, former smokers, and their relatives; (ii) damages on behalf of people exposed to environmental tobacco smoke (“ETS”) nationwide, and their relatives; and (iii) reimbursement of the health care costs allegedly incurred for the treatment of tobacco-related diseases by all Brazilian States and Municipalities, and the Federal District. In an interim ruling issued in December 2007, the trial court limited the scope of this claim to the State of São Paulo only. In December 2008, the Seventh Civil Court of São Paulo issued a decision declaring that it lacked jurisdiction because the case involved issues similar to the ADESF case discussed above and should be transferred to the Nineteenth Lower Civil Court in São Paulo where the ADESF case is pending. The court further stated that these cases should be consolidated for the purposes of judgment. In April 2010, the São Paulo Court of Appeals reversed the Seventh Civil Court's decision that consolidated the cases, finding that they are based on different legal claims and are progressing at different stages of proceedings. This case was returned to the Seventh Civil Court of São Paulo, and our subsidiary filed its closing arguments in December 2010. In March 2012, the trial court dismissed the case on the merits. In January 2014, the São Paulo Court of Appeals rejected plaintiff’s appeal and affirmed the trial court decision.
In the first class action pending in Canada, Cecilia Letourneau v. Imperial Tobacco Ltd., Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc. and JTI Macdonald Corp., Quebec Superior Court, Canada, filed in September 1998, our subsidiary and other Canadian manufacturers are defendants. The plaintiff, an individual smoker, is seeking compensatory and punitive damages for each member of the class who is deemed addicted to smoking. The class was certified in 2005. In February 2011, the trial court ruled that the federal government would remain as a third party in the case. In November 2012, the Court of Appeals dismissed defendants' third-party claims against the federal government. Trial began on March 12, 2012. At the present pace, trial is expected to conclude in 2014, with a judgment to follow at an indeterminate point after the conclusion of the trial proceedings.
In the second class action pending in Canada, Conseil Québécois Sur Le Tabac Et La Santé and Jean-Yves Blais v. Imperial Tobacco Ltd., Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc. and JTI Macdonald Corp., Quebec Superior Court, Canada, filed in November 1998, our subsidiary and other Canadian manufacturers are defendants. The plaintiffs, an anti-smoking organization and an individual smoker, are seeking compensatory and punitive damages for each member of the class who allegedly suffers from certain smoking-related diseases. The class was certified in 2005. In February 2011, the trial court ruled that the federal government would remain as a third party in the case. In November 2012, the Court of Appeals dismissed defendants' third-party claims against the federal government. Trial began on March 12, 2012. At the present pace, trial is expected to conclude in 2014, with a judgment to follow at an indeterminate point after the conclusion of the trial proceedings.
In the third class action pending in Canada, Kunta v. Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers' Council, et al., The Queen's Bench, Winnipeg, Canada, filed June 12, 2009, we, our subsidiaries, and our indemnitees (PM USA and Altria Group, Inc.), and other members of the industry are defendants. The plaintiff, an individual smoker, alleges her own addiction to tobacco products and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (“COPD”), severe asthma and mild reversible lung disease resulting from the use of tobacco products. She is seeking compensatory and punitive damages on behalf of a proposed class comprised of all smokers, their estates, dependents and family members, as well as restitution of profits, and reimbursement of government health care costs allegedly caused by tobacco products. In September 2009, plaintiff's counsel informed defendants that he did not anticipate taking any action in this case while he pursues the class action filed in Saskatchewan (see description of Adams, below).
69
In the fourth class action pending in Canada, Adams v. Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers' Council, et al., The Queen's Bench, Saskatchewan, Canada, filed July 10, 2009, we, our subsidiaries, and our indemnitees (PM USA and Altria Group, Inc.), and other members of the industry are defendants. The plaintiff, an individual smoker, alleges her own addiction to tobacco products and COPD resulting from the use of tobacco products. She is seeking compensatory and punitive damages on behalf of a proposed class comprised of all smokers who have smoked a minimum of 25,000 cigarettes and have allegedly suffered, or suffer, from COPD, emphysema, heart disease, or cancer, as well as restitution of profits. Preliminary motions are pending.
In the fifth class action pending in Canada, Semple v. Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers' Council, et al., The Supreme Court (trial court), Nova Scotia, Canada, filed June 18, 2009, we, our subsidiaries, and our indemnitees (PM USA and Altria Group, Inc.), and other members of the industry are defendants. The plaintiff, an individual smoker, alleges his own addiction to tobacco products and COPD resulting from the use of tobacco products. He is seeking compensatory and punitive damages on behalf of a proposed class comprised of all smokers, their estates, dependents and family members, as well as restitution of profits, and reimbursement of government health care costs allegedly caused by tobacco products. No activity in this case is anticipated while plaintiff's counsel pursues the class action filed in Saskatchewan (see description of Adams, above).
In the sixth class action pending in Canada, Dorion v. Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers' Council, et al., The Queen's Bench, Alberta, Canada, filed June 15, 2009, we, our subsidiaries, and our indemnitees (PM USA and Altria Group, Inc.), and other members of the industry are defendants. The plaintiff, an individual smoker, alleges her own addiction to tobacco products and chronic bronchitis and severe sinus infections resulting from the use of tobacco products. She is seeking compensatory and punitive damages on behalf of a proposed class comprised of all smokers, their estates, dependents and family members, restitution of profits, and reimbursement of government health care costs allegedly caused by tobacco products. To date, we, our subsidiaries, and our indemnitees have not been properly served with the complaint. No activity in this case is anticipated while plaintiff's counsel pursues the class action filed in Saskatchewan (see description of Adams, above).
In the seventh class action pending in Canada, McDermid v. Imperial Tobacco Canada Limited, et al., Supreme Court, British Columbia, Canada, filed June 25, 2010, we, our subsidiaries, and our indemnitees (PM USA and Altria Group, Inc.), and other members of the industry are defendants. The plaintiff, an individual smoker, alleges his own addiction to tobacco products and heart disease resulting from the use of tobacco products. He is seeking compensatory and punitive damages on behalf of a proposed class comprised of all smokers who were alive on June 12, 2007, and who suffered from heart disease allegedly caused by smoking, their estates, dependents and family members, plus disgorgement of revenues earned by the defendants from January 1, 1954 to the date the claim was filed. Defendants have filed jurisdictional challenges on the grounds that this action should not proceed during the pendency of the Saskatchewan class action (see description of Adams, above).
In the eighth class action pending in Canada, Bourassa v. Imperial Tobacco Canada Limited, et al., Supreme Court, British Columbia, Canada, filed June 25, 2010, we, our subsidiaries, and our indemnitees (PM USA and Altria Group, Inc.), and other members of the industry are defendants. The plaintiff, the heir to a deceased smoker, alleges that the decedent was addicted to tobacco products and suffered from emphysema resulting from the use of tobacco products. She is seeking compensatory and punitive damages on behalf of a proposed class comprised of all smokers who were alive on June 12, 2007, and who suffered from chronic respiratory diseases allegedly caused by smoking, their estates, dependents and family members, plus disgorgement of revenues earned by the defendants from January 1, 1954 to the date the claim was filed. Defendants have filed jurisdictional challenges on the grounds that this action should not proceed during the pendency of the Saskatchewan class action (see description of Adams, above).
In the ninth class action pending in Canada, Suzanne Jacklin v. Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers' Council, et al., Ontario Superior Court of Justice, filed June 20, 2012, we, our subsidiaries, and our indemnitees (PM USA and Altria Group, Inc.), and other members of the industry are defendants. The plaintiff, an individual smoker, alleges her own addiction to tobacco products and COPD resulting from the use of tobacco products. She is seeking compensatory and punitive damages on behalf of a proposed class comprised of all smokers who have smoked a minimum of 25,000 cigarettes and have allegedly suffered, or suffer, from COPD, heart disease, or cancer, as well as restitution of profits. Plaintiff's counsel has indicated that he does not intend to take any action in this case in the near future.
Health Care Cost Recovery Litigation: These cases, brought by governmental and non-governmental plaintiffs, seek reimbursement of health care cost expenditures allegedly caused by tobacco products. Plaintiffs' allegations of liability in these cases are based on various theories of recovery including unjust enrichment, negligence, negligent design, strict liability, breach of express and implied warranties, violation of a voluntary undertaking or special duty, fraud, negligent misrepresentation, conspiracy, public nuisance, defective product, failure to warn, sale of cigarettes to minors, and claims under statutes governing competition and deceptive trade practices. Plaintiffs in these cases seek various forms of relief including compensatory and other damages, and injunctive and equitable relief. Defenses raised in these cases include lack of proximate cause, remoteness of injury, failure to state a claim, adequate remedy at law, “unclean hands” (namely, that plaintiffs cannot obtain equitable relief because they participated in, and benefited from, the sale of cigarettes), and statute of limitations.
As of December 31, 2013, there were 15 health care cost recovery cases pending against us, our subsidiaries or indemnitees in Canada (9), Nigeria (5) and Spain (1), compared with 15 such cases on December 31, 2012 and 11 such cases on December 31, 2011.
70
In the first health care cost recovery case pending in Canada, Her Majesty the Queen in Right of British Columbia v. Imperial Tobacco Limited, et al., Supreme Court, British Columbia, Vancouver Registry, Canada, filed January 24, 2001, we, our subsidiaries, our indemnitee (PM USA), and other members of the industry are defendants. The plaintiff, the government of the province of British Columbia, brought a claim based upon legislation enacted by the province authorizing the government to file a direct action against cigarette manufacturers to recover the health care costs it has incurred, and will incur, resulting from a “tobacco related wrong.” The Supreme Court of Canada has held that the statute is constitutional. We and certain other non-Canadian defendants challenged the jurisdiction of the court. The court rejected the jurisdictional challenge. Pre-trial discovery is ongoing.
In the second health care cost recovery case filed in Canada, Her Majesty the Queen in Right of New Brunswick v. Rothmans Inc., et al., Court of Queen's Bench of New Brunswick, Trial Court, New Brunswick, Fredericton, Canada, filed March 13, 2008, we, our subsidiaries, our indemnitees (PM USA and Altria Group, Inc.), and other members of the industry are defendants. The claim was filed by the government of the province of New Brunswick based on legislation enacted in the province. This legislation is similar to the law introduced in British Columbia that authorizes the government to file a direct action against cigarette manufacturers to recover the health care costs it has incurred, and will incur, as a result of a “tobacco related wrong.” Pre-trial discovery is ongoing.
In the third health care cost recovery case filed in Canada, Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario v. Rothmans Inc., et al., Ontario Superior Court of Justice, Toronto, Canada, filed September 29, 2009, we, our subsidiaries, our indemnitees (PM USA and Altria Group, Inc.), and other members of the industry are defendants. The claim was filed by the government of the province of Ontario based on legislation enacted in the province. This legislation is similar to the laws introduced in British Columbia and New Brunswick that authorize the government to file a direct action against cigarette manufacturers to recover the health care costs it has incurred, and will incur, as a result of a “tobacco related wrong.” Preliminary motions are pending.
In the fourth health care cost recovery case filed in Canada, Attorney General of Newfoundland and Labrador v. Rothmans Inc., et al., Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador, St. Johns, Canada, filed February 8, 2011, we, our subsidiaries, our indemnitees (PM USA and Altria Group, Inc.), and other members of the industry are defendants. The claim was filed by the government of the province of Newfoundland and Labrador based on legislation enacted in the province that is similar to the laws introduced in British Columbia, New Brunswick and Ontario. The legislation authorizes the government to file a direct action against cigarette manufacturers to recover the health care costs it has incurred, and will incur, as a result of a “tobacco related wrong.” Preliminary motions are pending.
In the fifth health care cost recovery case filed in Canada, Attorney General of Quebec v. Imperial Tobacco Limited, et al., Superior Court of Quebec, Canada, filed June 8, 2012, we, our subsidiary, our indemnitee (PM USA), and other members of the industry are defendants. The claim was filed by the government of the province of Quebec based on legislation enacted in the province that is similar to the laws enacted in several other Canadian provinces. The legislation authorizes the government to file a direct action against cigarette manufacturers to recover the health care costs it has incurred, and will incur, as a result of a “tobacco related wrong.” Preliminary motions are pending.
In the sixth health care cost recovery case filed in Canada, Her Majesty in Right of Alberta v. Altria Group, Inc., et al., Supreme Court of Queen's Bench Alberta, Canada, filed June 8, 2012, we, our subsidiaries, our indemnitees (PM USA and Altria Group, Inc.), and other members of the industry are defendants. The claim was filed by the government of the province of Alberta based on legislation enacted in the province that is similar to the laws enacted in several other Canadian provinces. The legislation authorizes the government to file a direct action against cigarette manufacturers to recover the health care costs it has incurred, and will incur, as a result of a “tobacco related wrong.” We, our subsidiaries and our indemnitees have all been served with the statement of claim.
In the seventh health care cost recovery case filed in Canada, Her Majesty the Queen in Right of the Province of Manitoba v. Rothmans, Benson & Hedges, Inc., et al., The Queen's Bench, Winnipeg Judicial Centre, Canada, filed May 31, 2012, we, our subsidiaries, our indemnitees (PM USA and Altria Group, Inc.), and other members of the industry are defendants. The claim was filed by the government of the province of Manitoba based on legislation enacted in the province that is similar to the laws enacted in several other Canadian provinces. The legislation authorizes the government to file a direct action against cigarette manufacturers to recover the health care costs it has incurred, and will incur, as a result of a “tobacco related wrong.” Preliminary motions are pending.
In the eighth health care cost recovery case filed in Canada, The Government of Saskatchewan v. Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc., et al., Queen's Bench, Judicial Centre of Saskatchewan, Canada, filed June 8, 2012, we, our subsidiaries, our indemnitees (PM USA and Altria Group, Inc.), and other members of the industry are defendants. The claim was filed by the government of the province of Saskatchewan based on legislation enacted in the province that is similar to the laws enacted in several other Canadian provinces. The legislation authorizes the government to file a direct action against cigarette manufacturers to recover the health care costs it has incurred, and will incur, as a result of a “tobacco related wrong.” Preliminary motions are pending.
In the ninth health care cost recovery case filed in Canada, Her Majesty the Queen in Right of the Province of Prince Edward Island v. Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc., et al., Supreme Court of Prince Edward Island (General Section), Canada, filed September 10, 2012, we, our subsidiaries, our indemnitees (PM USA and Altria Group, Inc.), and other members of the industry are defendants. The claim
71
was filed by the government of the province of Prince Edward Island based on legislation enacted in the province that is similar to the laws enacted in several other Canadian provinces. The legislation authorizes the government to file a direct action against cigarette manufacturers to recover the health care costs it has incurred, and will incur, as a result of a “tobacco related wrong.” Preliminary motions are pending.
In the first health care cost recovery case in Nigeria, The Attorney General of Lagos State v. British American Tobacco (Nigeria) Limited, et al., High Court of Lagos State, Lagos, Nigeria, filed March 13, 2008, we and other members of the industry are defendants. Plaintiff seeks reimbursement for the cost of treating alleged smoking-related diseases for the past 20 years, payment of anticipated costs of treating alleged smoking-related diseases for the next 20 years, various forms of injunctive relief, plus punitive damages. We are in the process of making challenges to service and the court's jurisdiction. Currently, the case is stayed in the trial court pending the appeals of certain co-defendants relating to service objections. We currently have no employees, operations or assets in Nigeria.
In the second health care cost recovery case in Nigeria, The Attorney General of Kano State v. British American Tobacco (Nigeria) Limited, et al., High Court of Kano State, Kano, Nigeria, filed May 9, 2007, we and other members of the industry are defendants. Plaintiff seeks reimbursement for the cost of treating alleged smoking-related diseases for the past 20 years, payment of anticipated costs of treating alleged smoking-related diseases for the next 20 years, various forms of injunctive relief, plus punitive damages. We are in the process of making challenges to service and the court's jurisdiction. Currently, the case is stayed in the trial court pending the appeals of certain co-defendants relating to service objections.
In the third health care cost recovery case in Nigeria, The Attorney General of Gombe State v. British American Tobacco (Nigeria) Limited, et al., High Court of Gombe State, Gombe, Nigeria, filed October 17, 2008, we and other members of the industry are defendants. Plaintiff seeks reimbursement for the cost of treating alleged smoking-related diseases for the past 20 years, payment of anticipated costs of treating alleged smoking-related diseases for the next 20 years, various forms of injunctive relief, plus punitive damages. In February 2011, the court ruled that the plaintiff had not complied with the procedural steps necessary to serve us. As a result of this ruling, plaintiff must re-serve its claim. We have not yet been re-served.
In the fourth health care cost recovery case in Nigeria, The Attorney General of Oyo State, et al., v. British American Tobacco (Nigeria) Limited, et al., High Court of Oyo State, Ibadan, Nigeria, filed May 25, 2007, we and other members of the industry are defendants. Plaintiffs seek reimbursement for the cost of treating alleged smoking-related diseases for the past 20 years, payment of anticipated costs of treating alleged smoking-related diseases for the next 20 years, various forms of injunctive relief, plus punitive damages. We challenged service as improper. In June 2010, the court ruled that plaintiffs did not have leave to serve the writ of summons on the defendants and that they must re-serve the writ. We have not yet been re-served.
In the fifth health care cost recovery case in Nigeria, The Attorney General of Ogun State v. British American Tobacco (Nigeria) Limited, et al., High Court of Ogun State, Abeokuta, Nigeria, filed February 26, 2008, we and other members of the industry are defendants. Plaintiff seeks reimbursement for the cost of treating alleged smoking-related diseases for the past 20 years, payment of anticipated costs of treating alleged smoking-related diseases for the next 20 years, various forms of injunctive relief, plus punitive damages. In May 2010, the trial court rejected our service objections. We have appealed.
In a series of proceedings in Spain, Junta de Andalucia, et al. v. Philip Morris Spain, et al., Court of First Instance, Madrid, Spain, the first of which was filed February 21, 2002, our subsidiary and other members of the industry were defendants. The plaintiffs sought reimbursement for the cost of treating certain of their citizens for various alleged smoking-related illnesses. In May 2004, the first instance court dismissed the initial case, finding that the State was a necessary party to the claim, and thus, the claim must be filed in the Administrative Court. In September 2007, the plaintiffs filed their complaint in the Administrative Court, which dismissed the claim based on a procedural issue in November 2007. In November 2009, the Supreme Court rejected plaintiffs' appeal, resulting in the final dismissal of the claim. However, plaintiffs have filed a second claim in the Administrative Court against the Ministry of Economy. This second claim seeks the same relief as the original claim, but relies on a different procedural posture. In December 2013, the Administrative Court rejected plaintiffs' reimbursement claim. Plaintiffs' may appeal.
Lights Cases: These cases, brought by individual plaintiffs, or on behalf of a class of individual plaintiffs, allege that the use of the term “lights” constitutes fraudulent and misleading conduct. Plaintiffs' allegations of liability in these cases are based on various theories of recovery including misrepresentation, deception, and breach of consumer protection laws. Plaintiffs seek various forms of relief including restitution, injunctive relief, and compensatory and other damages. Defenses raised include lack of causation, lack of reliance, assumption of the risk, and statute of limitations.
As of December 31, 2013, the following lights cases were pending against our subsidiaries or indemnitees:
| |
• | 1 case brought on behalf of individual plaintiffs in Israel, compared with 2 such cases on December 31, 2012 and December 31, 2011, respectively; and |
| |
• | 2 cases brought by individual plaintiffs in Chile (1) and Italy (1), compared with 7 such cases on December 31, 2012, and 9 such cases on December 31, 2011. |
In the class action pending in Israel, El-Roy, et al. v. Philip Morris Incorporated, et al., District Court of Tel-Aviv/Jaffa, Israel, filed January 18, 2004, our subsidiary and our indemnitees (PM USA and our former importer) are defendants. The plaintiffs filed a purported class action claiming that the class members were misled by the descriptor “lights” into believing that lights cigarettes are safer than full flavor cigarettes. The claim seeks recovery of the purchase price of lights cigarettes and compensation for distress for
72
each class member. Hearings took place in November and December 2008 regarding whether the case meets the legal requirements necessary to allow it to proceed as a class action. The parties' briefing on class certification was completed in March 2011. In November 2012, the court denied class certification and dismissed the individual claims. Plaintiffs have appealed and an oral hearing has been scheduled for September 2014.
Public Civil Actions: Claims have been filed either by an individual, or a public or private entity, seeking to protect collective or individual rights, such as the right to health, the right to information or the right to safety. Plaintiffs' allegations of liability in these cases are based on various theories of recovery including product defect, concealment, and misrepresentation. Plaintiffs in these cases seek various forms of relief including injunctive relief such as banning cigarettes, descriptors, smoking in certain places and advertising, as well as implementing communication campaigns and reimbursement of medical expenses incurred by public or private institutions.
As of December 31, 2013, there were 3 public civil actions pending against our subsidiaries in Argentina (1), Brazil (1), and Venezuela (1), compared with 4 such cases on December 31, 2012, and 3 such cases on December 31, 2011.
In the public civil action in Argentina, Asociación Argentina de Derecho de Danos v. Massalin Particulares S.A., et al., Civil Court of Buenos Aires, Argentina, filed February 26, 2007, our subsidiary and another member of the industry are defendants. The plaintiff, a consumer association, seeks the establishment of a relief fund for reimbursement of medical costs associated with diseases allegedly caused by smoking. Our subsidiary filed its answer in September 2007. In March 2010, the case file was transferred to the Federal Court on Administrative Matters after the Civil Court granted the plaintiff's request to add the national government as a co-plaintiff in the case. The case is currently in the evidentiary stage.
In the public civil action in Brazil, The Brazilian Association for the Defense of Consumer Health (“SAUDECON”) v. Philip Morris Brasil Industria e Comercio Ltda. and Souza Cruz S.A., Civil Court of City of Porto Alegre, Brazil, filed November 3, 2008, our subsidiary is a defendant. The plaintiff, a consumer organization, is asking the court to establish a fund that will be used to provide treatment to smokers who claim to be addicted and who do not otherwise have access to smoking cessation treatment. Plaintiff requests that each defendant's liability be determined according to its market share. In May 2009, the trial court dismissed the case on the merits. In December 2013, the court of appeals affirmed the trial court's dismissal of the case. Plaintiff may appeal further.
In the public civil action in Venezuela, Federation of Consumers and Users Associations (“FEVACU”), et al. v. National Assembly of Venezuela and the Venezuelan Ministry of Health, Constitutional Chamber of the Venezuelan Supreme Court, filed April 29, 2008, we were not named as a defendant, but the plaintiffs published a notice pursuant to court order, notifying all interested parties to appear in the case. In January 2009, our subsidiary appeared in the case in response to this notice. The plaintiffs purport to represent the right to health of the citizens of Venezuela and claim that the government failed to protect adequately its citizens' right to health. The claim asks the court to order the government to enact stricter regulations on the manufacture and sale of tobacco products. In addition, the plaintiffs ask the court to order companies involved in the tobacco industry to allocate a percentage of their “sales or benefits” to establish a fund to pay for the health care costs of treating smoking-related diseases. In October 2008, the court ruled that plaintiffs have standing to file the claim and that the claim meets the threshold admissibility requirements. In December 2012, the court admitted our subsidiary and BAT's subsidiary as interested third parties. In February 2013, our subsidiary answered the complaint.
Other Litigation
We are also involved in other litigation arising in the ordinary course of our business. While the outcomes of these proceedings are uncertain, management does not expect that the ultimate outcomes of other litigation, including any reasonably possible losses in excess of current accruals, will have a material adverse effect on our consolidated results of operations, cash flows or financial position.
