Policy

Note 11 — Commitments and Contingencies

Tobacco Litigation — General

Introduction

Various legal proceedings or claims, including litigation claiming that cancer and other diseases, as well as addiction, have resulted from the use of, or exposure to, RAI’s operating subsidiaries’ products, are pending or may be instituted against RJR Tobacco, American Snuff Co. or their affiliates, including RAI and RJR, or indemnitees, including B&W. These pending legal proceedings include claims relating to cigarette products manufactured by RJR Tobacco or certain of its affiliates and indemnitees, as well as claims relating to smokeless tobacco products manufactured by American Snuff Co. A discussion of the legal proceedings relating to cigarette products is set forth below under the heading “— Litigation Affecting the Cigarette Industry.” All of the references under that heading to tobacco-related litigation, smoking and health litigation and other similar references are references to legal proceedings relating to cigarette products and are not references to legal proceedings involving smokeless tobacco products, and case numbers under that heading include only cases involving cigarette products. The legal proceedings relating to the smokeless tobacco products manufactured by American Snuff Co. are discussed separately under the heading “— Smokeless Tobacco Litigation” below.

In connection with the B&W business combination, RJR Tobacco has agreed to indemnify B&W and its affiliates, including its indirect parent, BAT, against certain liabilities, costs and expenses incurred by B&W or its affiliates arising out of the U.S. cigarette and tobacco business of B&W. As a result of this indemnity, RJR Tobacco has assumed the defense of pending B&W-specific tobacco-related litigation, has paid the judgments and costs related to certain pre-business combination tobacco-related litigation of B&W, and has posted bonds on behalf of B&W, where necessary, in connection with cases decided since the B&W business combination.

Certain Terms and Phrases

Certain terms and phrases used in this disclosure may require some explanation. The term “judgment” or “final judgment” refers to the final decision of the court resolving the dispute and determining the rights and obligations of the parties. At the trial court level, for example, a final judgment generally is entered by the court after a jury verdict and after post-verdict motions have been decided. In most cases, the losing party can appeal a verdict only after a final judgment has been entered by the trial court.

The term “damages” refers to the amount of money sought by a plaintiff in a complaint, or awarded to a party by a jury or, in some cases, by a judge. “Compensatory damages” are awarded to compensate the prevailing party for actual losses suffered, if liability is proved. In cases in which there is a finding that a defendant has acted willfully, maliciously or fraudulently, generally based on a higher burden of proof than is required for a finding of liability for compensatory damages, a plaintiff also may be awarded “punitive damages.” Although damages may be awarded at the trial court stage, a losing party generally may be protected from paying any damages until all appellate avenues have been exhausted by posting a supersedeas bond. The amount of such a bond is governed by the law of the relevant jurisdiction and generally is set at the amount of damages plus some measure of statutory interest, modified at the discretion of the appropriate court or subject to limits set by court or statute.

The term “per curiam” refers to an opinion entered by a court. In most cases, it is used to indicate that the opinion entered is a brief announcement of the court’s decision and is not accompanied by a written opinion.

The term “settlement” refers to certain types of cases in which cigarette manufacturers, including RJR Tobacco and B&W, have agreed to resolve disputes with certain plaintiffs without resolving the case through trial. The principal terms of certain settlements entered into by RJR Tobacco and B&W are explained below under “— Accounting for Tobacco-Related Litigation Contingencies.”

Theories of Recovery

The plaintiffs seek recovery on a variety of legal theories, including negligence, strict liability in tort, design defect, failure to warn, fraud, misrepresentation, unfair trade practices, conspiracy, medical monitoring and violations of state and federal antitrust laws. In certain of these cases, the plaintiffs claim that cigarette smoking exacerbated injuries caused by exposure to asbestos.

The plaintiffs seek various forms of relief, including compensatory and, where available, punitive damages, treble or multiple damages and statutory damages and penalties, creation of medical monitoring and smoking cessation funds, disgorgement of profits, and injunctive and other equitable relief. Although alleged damages often are not determinable from a complaint, and the law governing the pleading and calculation of damages varies from 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.

Defenses

The defenses raised by RJR Tobacco, American Snuff Co. and their affiliates and indemnitees include, where applicable and otherwise appropriate, preemption by the Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act of some or all claims arising after 1969, or by the Comprehensive Smokeless Tobacco Health Education Act for claims arising after 1986, the lack of any defect in the product, assumption of the risk, contributory or comparative fault, lack of proximate cause, remoteness, lack of standing and statutes of limitations or repose. RAI and RJR have asserted additional defenses, including jurisdictional defenses, in many of the cases in which they are named.

Accounting for Tobacco-Related Litigation Contingencies

In accordance with GAAP, RAI and its subsidiaries, including RJR Tobacco, American Snuff Co. and SFNTC, as applicable, record any loss concerning litigation at such time as an unfavorable outcome becomes probable and the amount can be reasonably estimated on an individual case-by-case basis. For the reasons set forth below, RAI’s management continues to conclude that the loss of any particular pending smoking and health tobacco litigation claim against RJR Tobacco or its affiliates or indemnitees, or the loss of any particular claim concerning the use of smokeless tobacco products against American Snuff Co., when viewed on an individual basis, is not probable, except for the nine Engle Progeny cases noted below.

RJR Tobacco and its affiliates believe that they have valid defenses to the smoking and health tobacco litigation claims against them, as well as valid bases for appeal of adverse verdicts against them. RAI, RJR Tobacco and their affiliates and indemnitees have, through their counsel, filed pleadings and memoranda in pending smoking and health tobacco litigation that set forth and discuss a number of grounds and defenses that they and their counsel believe have a valid basis in law and fact. With the exception of Engle Progeny cases, described below, RJR Tobacco and its affiliates and indemnitees continue to win the majority of smoking and health tobacco litigation claims that reach trial, and a very high percentage of the tobacco-related litigation claims brought against them continue to be dismissed at or before trial. Based on their experience in the smoking and health tobacco litigation against them and the strength of the defenses available to them in such litigation, RJR Tobacco and its affiliates believe that their successful defense of smoking and health tobacco litigation in the past will continue in the future.

An accrual of $21 million has been recorded in RAI’s consolidated balance sheet as of December 31, 2013. This amount includes $5.4 million for compensatory and punitive damages and $5.6 million for attorneys’ fees and statutory interest through December 31, 2013, for nine Engle Progeny cases — Jimmie Lee Brown, Sherman, Koballa,Ward, Duke, Walker, Hiott, Kirkland and Sury, described below. It also includes $10 million for estimated costs that have been accrued in connection with the U.S. Department of Justice case, also described below. During the fourth quarter of 2013, a payment of $305,000 ($250,000 for compensatory damages and $55,000 for attorneys’ fees and interest) was made in satisfaction of the adverse judgment in the Douglas case, an Engle Progeny case, described below. Also, a payment of $1.5 million was made in satisfaction of the adverse judgment in the Smith case, an individual smoking and health case. Additionally, a payment of $14 million was made in satisfaction of the adverse judgment in the State of Vermont v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. Eclipse advertising case, described below. Finally, payment in Ward, an Engle Progeny case, of $2.4 million was made on January 31, 2014. No other liabilities for pending smoking and health litigation have been recorded as of December 31, 2013. As other cases proceed through the appellate process, RAI will consider making further accruals on an individual case-by-case basis if an unfavorable outcome becomes probable and the amount can be reasonably estimated.

It is the policy of RJR Tobacco and its affiliates to vigorously defend all tobacco-related litigation claims. Generally, RJR Tobacco and its affiliates and indemnitees have not settled any smoking and health tobacco litigation claims. Other than actions taken pursuant to “offer of judgment” statutes, as described below in “— Litigation Affecting the Cigarette Industry,” RJR Tobacco and its affiliates do not intend to settle such claims.

With respect to smoking and health tobacco litigation claims, the only significant settlements reached by RJR Tobacco and B&W involved:

•

the State Settlement Agreements and the funding by various tobacco companies of a $5.2 billion trust fund contemplated by the MSA to benefit tobacco growers; and

•

the original Broin flight attendant case discussed below under “— Litigation Affecting the Cigarette Industry — Broin II Cases.”

The circumstances surrounding the State Settlement Agreements and the funding of a trust fund to benefit the tobacco growers are readily distinguishable from the current categories of smoking and health cases involving RJR Tobacco or its affiliates and indemnitees. The claims underlying the State Settlement Agreements were brought on behalf of the states to recover funds paid for health care and medical and other assistance to state citizens suffering from diseases and conditions allegedly related to tobacco use. The State Settlement Agreements settled all the health-care cost recovery actions brought by, or on behalf of, the settling jurisdictions and contain releases of various additional present and future claims. In accordance with the MSA, various tobacco companies agreed to fund a $5.2 billion trust fund to be used to address the possible adverse economic impact of the MSA on tobacco growers. A discussion of the State Settlement Agreements, and a table depicting the related payment schedule, is set forth below under “— Litigation Affecting the Cigarette Industry — Health-Care Cost Recovery Cases.”

The states were a unique set of plaintiffs and are not involved in any of the smoking and health cases remaining against RJR Tobacco or its affiliates and indemnitees. Although RJR Tobacco and certain of its affiliates and indemnitees continue to be defendants in health-care cost recovery cases similar in theory to the state cases but involving other plaintiffs, such as Native American tribes and foreign governments, the vast majority of such cases have been dismissed on legal grounds. RJR Tobacco and its affiliates, including RAI, believe that the same legal principles that have resulted in dismissal of health-care cost recovery cases either at the trial court level or on appeal should compel dismissal of the similar pending cases.

As with claims that were resolved by the State Settlement Agreements, the other cases settled by RJR Tobacco can be distinguished from existing cases pending against RJR Tobacco and its affiliates and indemnitees. The original Broin case, discussed below under “— Litigation Affecting the Cigarette Industry — Broin II Cases,” was settled in the middle of trial during negotiations concerning a possible nation-wide settlement of claims similar to those underlying the State Settlement Agreements.

In 2010, RJR Tobacco entered into a comprehensive agreement with the Canadian federal, provincial and territorial governments, which resolved all civil claims related to the movement of contraband tobacco products in Canada during the period 1985 through 1999 that the Canadian governments could assert against RJR Tobacco and its affiliates. These claims were separate from any smoking and health tobacco litigation.

Likewise, in 2004, RJR Tobacco and B&W separately settled the antitrust case DeLoach v. Philip Morris Cos., Inc., which was brought by a unique class of plaintiffs: a class of all tobacco growers and tobacco allotment holders. The plaintiffs asserted that the defendants conspired to fix the price of tobacco leaf and to destroy the federal government’s tobacco quota and price support program. Despite legal defenses they believed to be valid, RJR Tobacco and B&W separately settled this case to avoid a long and contentious trial with the tobacco growers. The DeLoach case and the antitrust case currently pending against RJR Tobacco and B&W involve different types of plaintiffs and different theories of recovery under the antitrust laws than the smoking and health cases pending against RJR Tobacco and its affiliates and indemnitees.

Finally, as discussed under “— Litigation Affecting the Cigarette Industry — State Settlement Agreements —Enforcement and Validity; Adjustments,” RJR Tobacco and B&W each has settled certain cases brought by states concerning the enforcement of State Settlement Agreements. Despite legal defenses believed to be valid, these cases were settled to avoid further contentious litigation with the states involved. These enforcement actions involve alleged breaches of State Settlement Agreements based on specific actions taken by particular defendants. Accordingly, any future enforcement actions involving State Settlement Agreements will be reviewed by RJR Tobacco on the merits and should not be affected by the settlement of prior enforcement cases.

American Snuff Co. also believes that it has valid defenses to the smokeless tobacco litigation against it. American Snuff Co. asserted and will continue to assert some or all of these defenses in each case at the time and in the manner deemed appropriate by American Snuff Co. and its counsel. No verdict or judgment has been returned or entered against American Snuff Co. on any claim for personal injuries allegedly resulting from the use of smokeless tobacco products. American Snuff Co. intends to defend vigorously all smokeless tobacco litigation claims asserted against it. No liability for pending smokeless tobacco litigation was recorded in RAI’s consolidated balance sheet as of December 31, 2013.

Cautionary Statement

Even though RAI’s management continues to conclude that the loss of particular pending smoking and health tobacco litigation claims against RJR Tobacco or its affiliates or indemnitees, or the loss of any particular case concerning the use of smokeless tobacco products against American Snuff Co., when viewed on an individual case-by-case basis, is not probable, the possibility of material losses related to such litigation is more than remote. Litigation is subject to many uncertainties, and generally, it is not possible to predict the outcome of any particular litigation pending against RJR Tobacco, American Snuff Co. or their affiliates or indemnitees, or to reasonably estimate the amount or range of any possible loss.

Although RJR Tobacco believes that it has valid bases for appeals of adverse verdicts in its pending cases, and RJR Tobacco and RAI believe they have valid defenses to all actions, and intend to defend all actions vigorously, it is possible that there could be further adverse developments in pending cases, and that additional cases could be decided unfavorably against RAI, RJR Tobacco or their affiliates or indemnitees. Determinations of liability or adverse rulings in such cases or in similar cases involving other cigarette manufacturers as defendants, even if such judgments are not final, could have a material adverse effect on the litigation against RJR Tobacco or its affiliates or indemnitees and could encourage the commencement of additional tobacco-related litigation. In addition, a number of political, legislative, regulatory and other developments relating to the tobacco industry and cigarette smoking have received wide media attention. These developments may negatively affect the outcomes of tobacco-related legal actions and encourage the commencement of additional similar litigation.

Although it is impossible to predict the outcome of such events on pending litigation and the rate new lawsuits are filed against RJR Tobacco or its affiliates or indemnitees, a significant increase in litigation or in adverse outcomes for tobacco defendants, or difficulties in obtaining the bonding required to stay execution of judgments on appeal, could have a material adverse effect on any or all of these entities. Moreover, notwithstanding the quality of defenses available to RJR Tobacco and its affiliates and indemnitees in litigation matters, it is possible that RAI’s results of operations, cash flows or financial position could be materially adversely affected by the ultimate outcome of certain pending litigation matters against RJR Tobacco or its affiliates or indemnitees.

Similarly, smokeless tobacco litigation is subject to many uncertainties. Notwithstanding the quality of defenses available to American Snuff Co., it is possible that RAI’s results of operations, cash flows or financial position could be materially adversely affected by the ultimate outcome of certain pending litigation matters against American Snuff Co.

Litigation Affecting the Cigarette Industry

Overview

Introduction. In connection with the B&W business combination, RJR Tobacco agreed to indemnify B&W and its affiliates against, among other things, certain litigation liabilities, costs and expenses incurred by B&W or its affiliates arising out of the U.S. cigarette and tobacco business of B&W. Accordingly, the cases discussed below include cases brought solely against RJR Tobacco and its affiliates, including RAI and RJR; cases brought against both RJR Tobacco, its affiliates and B&W; and cases brought solely against B&W and assumed by RJR Tobacco in the B&W business combination.

During the fourth quarter of 2013, three tobacco-related cases were served against RJR Tobacco or its affiliates or indemnitees. On December 31, 2013, there were 165 cases pending against RJR Tobacco or its affiliates or indemnitees: 149 in the United States and 16 in Canada, as compared with 174 total cases on December 31, 2012. The U.S. case number does not include the approximately 564 individual smoker cases pending in West Virginia state court as a consolidated action, 5,131 Engle Progeny cases, involving approximately 6,323 individual plaintiffs, and 2,572 Broin II cases (as hereinafter defined), pending in the United States against RJR Tobacco or its affiliates or indemnitees. Of the U.S. cases pending on December 31, 2013, 16 are pending in federal court, 132 in state court and 1 in tribal court, primarily in the following states: Florida (26 cases); Maryland (22 cases); Missouri (19 cases); New York (14 cases); Louisiana (9 cases); and California (9 cases).

The following table lists the categories of the U.S. tobacco-related cases pending against RJR Tobacco or its affiliates or indemnitees as of December 31, 2013, compared with the number of cases pending against RJR Tobacco, its affiliates or indemnitees as of September 30, 2013, as reported in RAI’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended September 30, 2013, filed with the SEC on October 22, 2013, and a cross-reference to the discussion of each case type.


Case Type	RJR Tobacco’s Case Numbers as of December 31, 2013		Change in Number of Cases Since September 30, 2013 Increase/(Decrease)			Page Reference
Individual Smoking and Health		94		(2	)		109
West Virginia IPIC (Number of Plaintiffs)*		1 (approx. 564)		approx. 534			111
Engle Progeny (Number of Plaintiffs)**		5,131 (approx. 6,323)		(56) (21)			111
Broin II		2,572		(2)			126
Class-Action		8		No change			126
Health-Care Cost Recovery		2		No change			129
State Settlement Agreements — Enforcement and Validity; Adjustments		31		No change			137
Antitrust		1		No change			142
Other Litigation and Developments		12		2			142

Includes as one case the approximately 564 cases pending as a consolidated action In Re: Tobacco Litigation Individual Personal Injury Cases, sometimes referred to as West Virginia IPIC cases, described below. The West Virginia IPIC cases have been separated from the Individual Smoking and Health cases for reporting purposes.

**	The Engle Progeny cases have been separated from the Individual Smoking and Health cases for reporting purposes. The number of cases has decreased as the result of many of the federal and state court cases being dismissed or duplicate actions being consolidated.

The following cases against RJR Tobacco and B&W have attracted significant attention: the Florida state court class-action case, Engle v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. and the related Engle Progeny cases; and the case brought by the U.S. Department of Justice under the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, referred to as RICO.

In 2000, a jury in Engle v. Liggett Group, a class-action brought against the major U.S. cigarette manufacturers by Florida smokers allegedly harmed by their addiction to nicotine, rendered a $145 billion punitive damages verdict in favor of the class. In 2006, the Florida Supreme Court set aside that award, prospectively decertified the class, and preserved several of the Engle jury findings for use in subsequent individual actions to be filed within one year of its decision. The preserved findings include jury determinations that smoking causes various diseases, that nicotine is addictive, and that each defendant sold cigarettes that were defective and unreasonably dangerous, committed unspecified acts of negligence and individually and jointly concealed unspecified information about the health risks of smoking.

In the wake of Engle, thousands of individual progeny actions were filed in federal and state courts in Florida. Such actions are commonly referred to as “Engle Progeny” cases. As of December 31, 2013, 1,925 Engle Progeny cases were pending in federal court, and 3,206 of them were pending in state court. These cases include approximately 6,323 plaintiffs. In addition, as of December 31, 2013, RJR Tobacco was aware of 16 additional Engle Progeny cases that had been filed but not served. Eighty Engle Progeny cases have been tried in Florida state and federal courts since 2011, and numerous state court trials are scheduled for 2014. The number of pending cases fluctuates for a variety of reasons, including voluntary and involuntary dismissals. Voluntary dismissals include cases in which a plaintiff accepts an “offer of judgment,” referred to in Florida statutes as “proposals for settlement,” from RJR Tobacco and/or its affiliates. An offer of judgment, if rejected by the plaintiff, preserves RJR Tobacco’s right to recover attorneys’ fees under Florida law in the event of a verdict favorable to RJR Tobacco. Such offers are sometimes made through court-ordered mediations.

In Engle Progeny cases tried to date, a central issue has been the proper use of the preserved Engle findings. RJR Tobacco has argued that use of the Engle findings to establish individual elements of progeny claims (such as defect, negligence and concealment) is a violation of federal due process. In 2013, however, both the Florida Supreme Court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, referred to as the Eleventh Circuit, rejected that argument. In addition to this global due process argument, RJR Tobacco raises many other factual and legal defenses as appropriate in each case. These defenses may include, among other things, arguing that the plaintiff is not a proper member of the Engle class, that the plaintiff did not rely on any statements by any tobacco company, that the trial was conducted unfairly, that some or all claims are barred by applicable statutes of limitation or statutes of repose, or that any injury was caused by the smoker’s own conduct.

Thirteen Engle Progeny cases have become final to date. These cases resulted in aggregate payments by RJR Tobacco of $109.8 million ($83.1 million for compensatory and punitive damages and $26.7 million for attorneys’ fees and statutory interest). During the fourth quarter of 2013, a payment of $305,000 ($250,000 for compensatory damages and $55,000 for attorneys’ fees and interest) was made in satisfaction of the adverse judgment in the Douglas case, an Engle Progeny case, described below. Payment in Ward, an Engle Progeny case, of $2.4 million was made on January 31, 2014.

In 2013, four Engle Progeny cases became final. These cases resulted in RJR Tobacco paying $6.5 million ($1.8 million for compensatory damages and $4.7 million for attorneys’ fees and statutory interest). In Bowman v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., Reese v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., and Weingart v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., the plaintiffs’ judgments were affirmed in an initial appeal, and RJR Tobacco decided to not seek further review. Bowman, Reese and Weingart resulted in an aggregate payment of $6.2 million ($1.5 million for compensatory damages and $4.7 million for attorneys’ fees and interest) in the second quarter of 2013. In Douglas v. Philip Morris USA, Inc., the Florida Supreme Court ruled against RJR Tobacco on its global due process argument, and the U.S. Supreme Court denied RJR Tobacco’s ensuing petition for certiorari. Douglas resulted in a payment by RJR Tobacco of $305,000 ($250,000 for compensatory damages and $55,000 for attorneys’ fees and statutory interest) in the fourth quarter of 2013. In addition, based on its evaluation of the Jimmie Lee Brown, Sherman, Koballa, Ward, Duke, Walker, Hiott, Kirkland and Sury cases, RJR Tobacco reflected an accrual for loss of $11 million in these cases ($5.4 million for compensatory and punitive damages and $5.6 million for attorneys’ fees and statutory interest). The following chart reflects the details related to these cases:


Plaintiff Case Name	RJR Tobacco Allocation of Fault			Compensatory Damages (as adjusted)⁽¹⁾		Punitive Damages		Status
Bowman		30	%	$	450,000	$	—	Paid
Reese		30	%		1,065,000		—	Paid
Weingart		3	%		4,500		—	Paid
Douglas		5	%		250,000		—	Paid
Ward		30	%		487,000		1,700,000	Paid in January 2014
Sherman		50	%		775,000		—	Pending-Florida Supreme Court
Jimmie Lee Brown		50	%		600,000		—	Pending-Florida Supreme Court
Koballa		30	%		300,000		—	Notice to invoke jurisdiction of Florida Supreme Court pending
Kirkland		10	%		260,000		—	Affirmed by Second DCA
Duke		25	%		7,676		—	Preparing to seek review with U.S. Supreme Court
Walker		10	%		27,500		—	Preparing to seek review with U.S. Supreme Court
Hiott		40	%		730,000		—	Preparing to seek review with the Florida Supreme Court
Sury		20	%		500,000		—	Florida Supreme Court denied petition for review

Totals				$	5,456,676	$	1,700,000

⁽¹⁾

Compensatory damages are adjusted to reflect the reduction required by the allocation of fault. Punitive damages are not adjusted and reflect the amount of the final judgment(s) signed by the trial court judge(s). The amounts listed above do not include attorneys’ fees or statutory interest that apply to the judgments.

In 2012, four Engle Progeny cases became final. These cases resulted in RJR Tobacco paying $34 million ($25.8 million for compensatory and punitive damages and $8.1 million for attorneys’ fees and statutory interest) in 2012. The following chart reflects the details related to these cases:


Plaintiff Case Name	RJR Tobacco Allocation of Fault			Compensatory Damages (as adjusted)⁽¹⁾		Punitive Damages		Status
Earline Alexander		51	%	$	1,275,000	$	2,500,000	Paid
Huish		25	%		188,000		1,500,000	Paid
Piendle		27.5	%		1,100,000		180,000	Paid
Clay		60	%		2,100,000		17,000,000	Paid

Totals				$	4,663,000	$	21,180,000

⁽¹⁾

In addition, four Engle Progeny cases became final in 2011, which resulted in RJR Tobacco paying $66.5 million ($53.3 million for compensatory and punitive damages and $13.5 million for attorneys’ fees and statutory interest) in 2012. The following chart reflects the details related to these cases:


Plaintiff Case Name	RJR Tobacco Allocation of Fault			Compensatory Damages (as adjusted)⁽¹⁾		Punitive Damages		Status
Martin		66	%	$	3,300,000	$	25,000,000	Paid
Campbell		39	%		3,040,000		—	Paid
Gray		60	%		4,200,000		2,000,000	Paid
Hall		65	%		3,250,000		12,500,000	Paid

Totals				$	13,790,000	$	39,500,000

⁽¹⁾

The following chart reflects verdicts in all other individual Engle Progeny cases, pending as of December 31, 2013, in which a verdict has been returned against RJR Tobacco or B&W, or both, and has not been set aside on appeal. No liability for any of these cases has been recorded in RAI’s consolidated balance sheet as of December 31, 2013. This chart does not include the mistrials or verdicts returned in favor of RJR Tobacco or B&W, or both.


Plaintiff Case Name	RJR Tobacco Allocation of Fault		Compensatory Damages (as adjusted)⁽¹⁾			Punitive Damages	Appeal Status
Cohen	33.3%	$	3,300,000		$	—	Punitive damages set aside; remanded for partial new trial; notice to invoke jurisdiction of Florida Supreme Court pending

Townsend	51%		5,500,000			20,000,000	Notice to invoke jurisdiction of Florida Supreme Court pending

Buonomo	77.5%		4,060,000			—	Punitive damages set aside; remanded for new trial; notice to invoke jurisdiction of Florida Supreme Court pending

Webb	90%		—			—	Reversed and remanded for new trial on damages

Mack	65%		1,885,000			—	Pending — First DCA

Soffer	40%		2,000,000			—	Notice to invoke jurisdiction of Florida Supreme Court pending

Ciccone	30%		1,000,000			—	Notice to invoke jurisdiction of Florida Supreme Court pending

Hallgren	25%		1,000,000⁽³⁾			750,000	Notice to invoke jurisdiction of Florida Supreme Court pending
Plaintiff Case Name	RJR Tobacco Allocation of Fault		Compensatory Damages (as adjusted)⁽¹⁾			Punitive Damages	Appeal Status

Emmon Smith	70%		7,000,000			20,000,000	Motion for rehearing pending — First DCA

Calloway	27%		16,100,000	⁽⁴⁾		17,250,000	Pending — Fourth DCA

Hancock	5%		700			—	Pending — Fourth DCA

Sikes	51%		3,520,000			2,000,000	Pending — First DCA

James Smith	55%		600,000	⁽⁵⁾		20,000	Pending — Eleventh Circuit

Schlenther	50%		5,030,000	⁽⁵⁾		2,500,000	Pending — Second DCA

Ballard	55%		5,000,000			—	Pending — Third DCA

Lock	9%		103,500			—	Pending — Second DCA

Williams	85%		4,250,000			—	Pending — Third DCA

Evers	60%		1,938,000			—	Punitive damages reversed; pending — Second DCA

Schoeff	75%		7,875,000			30,000,000	Pending — Fourth DCA

Marotta	58%		3,480,000			—	Pending — Fourth DCA

Searcy	30%		1,000,000	⁽⁶⁾		1,670,000	Pending — Eleventh Circuit

Aycock	72.5%		4,277,000			—	Pending — Eleventh Circuit

Earl Graham	20%		550,000			—	Pending — Eleventh Circuit

Starr-Blundell	10%		50,000			—	Pending — First DCA

Odum	50%		100,000			—	Pending — First DCA

Skolnick	30%		767,000			—	Pending — Fourth DCA

Thibault	70%		1,750,000	⁽⁵⁾		1,275,000	Pending — First DCA

Grossman	75%		15,350,000	⁽⁵⁾		22,500,000	Pending — Fourth DCA

Gafney	33%		1,914,000			—	Pending — Fourth DCA

Crawford	70%		9,000,000			1,000,000	Pending — Third DCA

Harford	18%		59,000			—	Post-trial motions are pending⁽²⁾

Cheeley	50%		3,000,000			2,000,000	Post-trial motions are pending⁽²⁾


Totals		$	111,459,200		$	120,965,000

⁽¹⁾	Unless otherwise noted, compensatory damages in these cases are adjusted to reflect the jury’s allocation of comparative fault. Punitive damages are not so adjusted. The amounts listed above do not include attorneys’ fees or statutory interest that may apply to the judgments.

⁽²⁾	Should the pending post-trial motions be denied, RJR Tobacco will file a notice of appeal with the appropriate appellate court.

⁽³⁾	The trial court held the defendants liable for the entire $1 million, even though the jury allocated 50% of fault to the plaintiff and 50% to the defendants.

⁽⁴⁾	In its ruling on the post-trial motions, the court determined that the jury’s apportionment of comparative fault did not apply to the compensatory damages award and found the defendants jointly and severally liable.

⁽⁵⁾	The court did not apply comparative fault in the final judgment.

⁽⁶⁾	The court held the defendants liable for the entire $1 million, even though the jury allocated 40% of fault to the plaintiff and 60% to the defendants.

Outstanding judgments in favor of the Engle Progeny plaintiffs have been entered and remain outstanding against RJR Tobacco in the amount of $111,459,200 in compensatory damages (as adjusted) and in the amount of $120,965,000 in punitive damages, for a total of $232,424,200. All of these verdicts are at various stages in the appellate process. RJR Tobacco continues to believe that it has valid defenses in these cases, including case-specific issues beyond the due process issue discussed above. It is the policy of RJR Tobacco and its affiliates to vigorously defend all smoking and health claims, including in Engle Progeny cases.

Should RJR Tobacco not prevail in any particular individual Engle Progeny case or determine that in any individual Engle Progeny case an unfavorable outcome has become probable and the amount can be reasonably estimated, a loss would be recognized, which could have a material adverse effect on earnings and cash flows of RAI in a particular fiscal quarter or fiscal year. This position on loss recognition for Engle Progeny cases as of December 31, 2013, is consistent with RAI’s and RJR Tobacco’s historic position on loss recognition for other smoking and health litigation. It is also the policy of RJR Tobacco to record any loss concerning litigation at such time as an unfavorable outcome becomes probable and the amount can be reasonably estimated on an individual case-by-case basis.

In the U.S. Department of Justice case, brought in 1999 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, the government sought, among other forms of relief, the disgorgement of profits pursuant to the civil provisions of RICO. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled in 2005 that disgorgement is not an available remedy in the case. The bench trial ended in June 2005, and the court, in August 2006, issued its ruling, among other things, finding certain defendants, including RJR Tobacco and B&W, liable for the RICO claims, imposing no direct financial penalties on the defendants, but ordering the defendants to make certain “corrective communications” in a variety of media and enjoining the defendants from using certain brand descriptors. Both sides appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. In May 2009, the U.S. Court of Appeals largely affirmed the findings against the tobacco company defendants and remanded to the trial court for further proceedings. The U.S. Supreme Court denied the parties’ petitions for writ of certiorari in June 2010. Post-remand proceedings are underway to determine the extent to which the original order will be implemented.

For a detailed description of these cases, see “— Engle and Engle Progeny Cases” and “— Health-Care Cost Recovery Cases — U.S. Department of Justice Case” below.

In November 1998, the major U.S. cigarette manufacturers, including RJR Tobacco and B&W, entered into the MSA with 46 U.S. states, Washington, D.C. and certain U.S. territories and possessions. These cigarette manufacturers previously settled four other cases, brought on behalf of Mississippi, Florida, Texas and Minnesota, by separate agreements with each state. These State Settlement Agreements:

•

settled all health-care cost recovery actions brought by, or on behalf of, the settling jurisdictions;

•

released the major U.S. cigarette manufacturers from various additional present and potential future claims;

•

imposed future payment obligations in perpetuity on RJR Tobacco, B&W and other major U.S. cigarette manufacturers; and

•

placed significant restrictions on their ability to market and sell cigarettes and smokeless tobacco products.

Payments under the State Settlement Agreements are subject to various adjustments for, among other things, the volume of cigarettes sold, relevant market share and inflation. See “— Health-Care Cost Recovery Cases — State Settlement Agreements” below for a detailed discussion of the State Settlement Agreements, including RAI’s operating subsidiaries’ monetary obligations under these agreements. RJR Tobacco records the allocation of settlement charges as products are shipped.

Scheduled Trials. Trial schedules are subject to change, and many cases are dismissed before trial. It is likely that RJR Tobacco and other cigarette manufacturers will have an increased number of tobacco-related trials in 2014. There are nine cases, exclusive of Engle Progeny cases, scheduled for trial as of December 31, 2013 through December 31, 2014, for RJR Tobacco or its affiliates and indemnitees: two non-smoking and health cases, six individual smoking and health cases and one class action. There are 65 Engle Progeny cases against RJR Tobacco and/or B&W set for trial through December 31, 2014, but it is not known how many of these cases will actually be tried.

Trial Results. From January 1, 2011 through December 31, 2013, 85 smoking and health, Engle Progeny and health-care cost recovery cases in which RJR Tobacco or B&W were defendants were tried, including 4 trials for cases where mistrials were declared in the original proceedings. Verdicts in favor of RJR Tobacco, B&W and, in some cases, RJR Tobacco, B&W and other defendants, were returned in 41 cases, including 11 mistrials, tried in Florida (38), Missouri (1) and West Virginia (2). Verdicts in favor of the plaintiffs were returned in 40 cases tried in Florida and one in New York. Three cases in Florida were dismissed during trial.

In the fourth quarter of 2013, two Engle Progeny cases in which RJR Tobacco was a defendant were tried:

•

In Blasco v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., RJR Tobacco was voluntarily dismissed after trial began.

•

In Chamberlain v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., the jury returned a verdict in favor of the defendants, including RJR Tobacco.

For a detailed description of the above-described cases, see “— Engle and Engle Progeny Cases” below.

In addition, since the end of the fourth quarter of 2013, decisions were entered in the following Engle Progeny cases:

•

In Bush v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., the court declared a mistrial due to the inability to seat a jury.

•

In Meeker v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., the jury returned a verdict in favor of RJR Tobacco.

•

In Cuculino v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., the jury returned a verdict in favor of RJR Tobacco and against the remaining defendant.

•

In the Anderson v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. retrial, the jury returned a verdict in favor of RJR Tobacco.

•

In Harford v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., the jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, found the plaintiff to be 82% at fault and RJR Tobacco to be 18% at fault, and awarded $330,000 in compensatory damages. Punitive damages were not awarded.

•

In Cheeley v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., the jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, found the decedent, Georgia Cheeley, to be 50% at fault and RJR Tobacco to be 50% at fault, and awarded $3 million in compensatory damages and $2 million in punitive damages.

•

In Deshaies v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., the jury returned a verdict in favor of RJR Tobacco.

In the fourth quarter of 2013, no non-Engle Progeny individual smoking and health cases in which RJR Tobacco was a defendant were tried.

The following chart reflects the verdicts in the smoking and health cases or health-care cost recovery cases that have been tried and remain pending as of December 31, 2013, in which verdicts have been returned against RJR Tobacco or B&W, or both. For information on the verdicts in the Engle Progeny cases that have been tried and remain pending as of December 31, 2013, in which verdicts have been returned against RJR Tobacco or B&W, or both, see the Engle Progeny cases chart above. For information on the post-trial status of individual smoking and health cases and the governmental health-care cost recovery case, see “— Individual Smoking and Health Cases,” and “—Health-Care Cost Recovery Cases — U.S. Department of Justice Case,” respectively, below:


Date of Verdict	Case Name/Type	Jurisdiction	Verdict
August 17, 2006	United States v. Philip Morris USA, Inc. [Governmental Health- Care Cost Recovery]	U.S. District Court, District of Columbia (Washington, DC)	RJR Tobacco and B&W were found liable for civil RICO claims; were enjoined from using certain brand descriptors and from making certain misrepresentations; and were ordered to make corrective communications on five subjects, including smoking and health and addiction, to reimburse the U.S. Department of Justice appropriate costs associated with the lawsuit, and to maintain document web sites.

May 26, 2010	Izzarelli v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. [Individual]	U.S. District Court, District of Connecticut, (Bridgeport, CT)	$13.9 million in compensatory damages; 58% of fault assigned to RJR Tobacco, which reduced the award to $8.08 million against RJR Tobacco; $3.97 million in punitive damages.

Individual Smoking and Health Cases

As of December 31, 2013, 94 individual cases were pending in the United States against RJR Tobacco, B&W, as its indemnitee, or both. This category of cases includes smoking and health cases alleging personal injury brought by or on behalf of individual plaintiffs, but does not include the Broin II, Engle Progeny or West Virginia IPICcases discussed below. A total of 92 of the individual cases are brought by or on behalf of individual smokers or their survivors, while the remaining two cases are brought by or on behalf of individuals or their survivors alleging personal injury as a result of exposure to environmental tobacco smoke, referred to as ETS.

Below is a description of the individual smoking and health cases against RJR Tobacco or B&W, or both, which went to trial or were decided during the period from October 1, 2013 to December 31, 2013, or remained on appeal as of December 31, 2013.

On February 1, 2005, the jury returned a split verdict in Smith v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., a case filed in May 2003 in Circuit Court, Jackson County, Missouri, finding in favor of B&W on two counts, fraudulent concealment and conspiracy, and finding in favor of the plaintiffs on negligence, which incorporates failure to warn and product defect claims. The plaintiffs were awarded $2 million in compensatory damages and $20 million in punitive damages; however, the jury found the plaintiff to be 75% at fault and B&W 25% at fault, and thus the compensatory award was reduced to $500,000. The Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed the compensatory damages award but reversed and ordered a new trial on punitive damages. On July 29, 2009, RJR Tobacco, on behalf of B&W, paid the compensatory damages verdict, plus interest, in the amount of approximately $700,000. In August 2009, the jury in the punitive damages retrial returned a verdict for the plaintiffs and awarded the plaintiffs $1.5 million in punitive damages. B&W and the plaintiffs filed notices of appeal in December 2009. In October 2012, the Missouri Court of Appeals reversed the punitive damages award entered in August 2009, and remanded the case for another new trial on punitive damages. In November 2012, B&W filed an application for transfer to the Missouri Supreme Court, which was granted in December 2012. The Missouri Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s judgment in September 2013. RJR Tobacco paid $1.5 million in satisfaction of the judgment on November 1, 2013.

On May 26, 2010, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff in Izzarelli v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., a case filed in December 1999 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut. The plaintiff sought to recover damages for personal injuries that the plaintiff alleges she sustained as a result of unsafe and unreasonably dangerous cigarette products and for economic losses she sustained as a result of unfair trade practices of the defendant. The jury found RJR Tobacco to be 58% at fault and the plaintiff to be 42% at fault, awarded $13.9 million in compensatory damages and found the plaintiff to be entitled to punitive damages. In December 2010, the court awarded the plaintiff $3.97 million in punitive damages. Final judgment was entered on December 30, 2010, in the amount of $11.95 million. The court granted the plaintiff’s motion for offer of judgment interest, and awarded the plaintiff $15.8 million for the period of December 6, 1999 up to and including December 5, 2010, and approximately $4,000 per day thereafter until an amended judgment was entered. The amended judgment was entered in the amount of approximately $28.1 million on March 4, 2011. RJR Tobacco filed a notice of appeal in September 2011, and the plaintiff thereafter cross appealed with respect to the punitive damages award. In September 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued an opinion that certified the following question to the Connecticut Supreme Court: “Does Comment i to section 402A of the Restatement (Second) of Torts preclude a suit premised on strict products liability against a cigarette manufacturer based on evidence that the defendant purposefully manufactured cigarettes to increase daily consumption without regard to the resultant increase in exposure to carcinogens, but in the absence of evidence of any adulteration or contamination?” Subsequently, the plaintiff submitted a motion to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit to amend the certification order to add a second question to the Connecticut Supreme Court: “Does Comment i to section 402A of the Restatement (Second) of Torts preclude a claim under the [Connecticut Products Liability Act] against a cigarette manufacturer for negligence (in the design of its cigarette products)?” RJR Tobacco opposed that motion, and the Second Circuit thereafter denied the plaintiff’s motion. The Connecticut Supreme Court accepted the certified question and denied the plaintiff’s request to amend the question with the same additional question that the plaintiff proposed to the Second Circuit. Briefing before the Connecticut Supreme Court on the certified question is underway. The Second Circuit has retained jurisdiction over the parties’ appeals and will decide the case after the Connecticut Supreme Court has completed its proceedings.

On June 19, 2013, in Whitney v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., the jury returned a verdict in favor of the defendants, including RJR Tobacco. The case was filed in January 2011, in the Circuit Court, Alachua County, Florida. The plaintiff alleged that as a result of using the defendants’ products, she suffers from lung cancer and emphysema. Final judgment was entered on July 10, 2013. The plaintiff’s motion for a new trial was denied. The plaintiff filed a notice of appeal to the First District Court of Appeal, and the defendants filed a notice of cross appeal in August 2013. Briefing is underway.

West Virginia IPIC

In re: Tobacco Litigation Individual Personal Injury Cases began in 1999, in West Virginia state court, as a series of roughly 1200 individual plaintiff cases making claims with respect to cigarettes manufactured by Philip Morris, Lorillard, RJR Tobacco, B&W and The American Tobacco Company. The cases were consolidated for a Phase I trial on various defense conduct issues, to be followed in Phase II by individual trials of any claims left standing. Over the years, approximately 600 individual plaintiff claims were dismissed for failure to comply with the case management order, leaving 564 individual cases pending as of April 2013. On April 15, 2013, the Phase I jury trial began and ended with a virtually complete defense verdict on May 15, 2013. The jury found that cigarettes were not defectively designed, were not defective due to a failure to warn prior to July 1, 1969, that defendants were not negligent, did not breach warranties and did not engage in conduct which would warrant punitive damages. The only claim remaining after the verdict was the jury’s finding that all ventilated filter cigarettes manufactured and sold between 1964 and July 1, 1969 were defective for a failure to instruct. The defendants believe that there are only 30 plaintiffs remaining who arguably claim to have smoked a ventilated filter cigarette during the relevant period. The court initially entered judgment on the verdict identifying the 30 plaintiffs remaining, but vacated those orders as premature (leaving to a later day the task of identifying the plaintiffs who might be able to assert a ventilated filter failure to instruct claim during the narrow relevant period). The court entered a new judgment in October 2013, dismissing all claims lost by the plaintiffs and purporting to make those claims and all of the jury rulings immediately subject to appeal. The plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals in November 2013, with briefing expected to occur during the first quarter of 2014. The defendants did not file a notice of appeal on the ventilated filter finding, but retained the right to file a cross appeal on that issue in response to the plaintiff’s initial brief.

Engle and Engle Progeny Cases

Trial began in July 1998 in Engle v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., a class-action filed in Circuit Court, Miami-Dade County, Florida. The Engle class consisted of Florida citizens and residents, and their survivors, who suffer from or have died from diseases or medical conditions caused by an addiction to smoking. The action was brought against the major U.S. cigarette manufacturers, including RJR Tobacco and B&W. In July 1999, the Engle jury found against RJR Tobacco, B&W and the other defendants in the initial phase of the trial, which addressed alleged common issues related to the defendants’ conduct, general causation, the addictiveness of cigarettes, and potential entitlement to punitive damages.

On July 14, 2000, in the second phase of the trial, the jury returned a punitive damages verdict in favor of the class of approximately $145 billion, including verdicts of $36.3 billion and $17.6 billion against RJR Tobacco and B&W, respectively.

On appeal, the Florida Supreme Court prospectively decertified the class, and it set aside the punitive damages award as both premature and excessive. However, the court preserved a number of findings from Phase I of the trial, including findings that cigarettes can cause certain diseases, that nicotine is addictive, and that defendants placed defective cigarettes on the market, breached duties of care, and concealed health-related information about cigarettes. The court authorized former class members to file individual lawsuits within one year, and it stated that the preserved findings would have res judicata effect in those actions.

In the wake of the Florida Supreme Court ruling, thousands of individuals filed separate lawsuits seeking to benefit from the Engle findings. As of December 31, 2013, RJR Tobacco was a defendant in 5,131 Engle Progeny cases in both state and federal courts in Florida. These cases include approximately 6,323 plaintiffs. Many of these cases are in active discovery or nearing trial.

In Engle Progeny cases tried to date, a central issue is the proper use of the preserved Engle findings. RJR Tobacco has argued that use of the Engle findings to establish individual elements of progeny claims (such as defect, negligence and concealment) is a violation of federal due process. In 2013, however, both the Florida Supreme Court and the Eleventh Circuit rejected that argument.

In June 2009, Florida amended its existing bond cap statute by adding a $200 million bond cap that applied to all Engle Progeny cases in the aggregate. In May 2011, Florida removed the provision that allowed it to expire on December 31, 2012. The bond cap for any given individual Engle Progeny case varies depending on the number of judgments in effect at a given time, but never exceeds $5 million per case. The legislation, which became effective in June 2009 and 2011, applies to judgments entered after the original 2009 effective date.

Below is a description of the Engle Progeny cases against RJR Tobacco or B&W, or both, which went to trial or were decided during the period from October 1, 2013 to December 31, 2013, or remained on appeal as of December 31, 2013.

On May 5, 2009, in Sherman v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., a case filed in September 2007 in the Circuit Court, Broward County, Florida, a jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff. The plaintiff, Melba Sherman, alleged that as a result of using the defendant’s products, the decedent, John Sherman, developed lung cancer and died. The plaintiff sought compensatory damages and an unspecified amount of punitive damages. On May 8, 2009, the jury awarded compensatory damages of $1.55 million and found the decedent to be 50% at fault. No punitive damages were awarded. The court entered final judgment in the amount of $775,000 in June 2009. RJR Tobacco filed a notice of appeal to the Fourth DCA, and posted a supersedeas bond in the amount of approximately $900,000. The plaintiff filed a notice of cross appeal of the final judgment in July 2009. In February 2012, the Fourth DCA affirmed the trial court’s decision. In March 2012, RJR Tobacco filed a notice to invoke discretionary jurisdiction of the Florida Supreme Court. In May 2013, the Florida Supreme Court accepted jurisdiction, and the case will be submitted without oral argument. A decision is pending.

On May 20, 2009, in Jimmie Lee Brown v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., a case filed in March 2007, in the Circuit Court, Broward County, Florida, a jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff. The plaintiff alleged that the decedent, Roger Brown, developed smoking related diseases, which resulted in his death. The plaintiff sought compensatory damages and an unspecified amount of punitive damages. The jury later returned a verdict that the decedent was 50% at fault for his injuries and awarded compensatory damages of $1.2 million. No punitive damages were awarded. RJR Tobacco’s post-trial motions were denied, and the court entered final judgment in the amount of $600,000. RJR Tobacco filed a notice of appeal to the Fourth DCA, and posted a supersedeas bond in the amount of approximately $700,000. The Fourth DCA affirmed the trial court’s judgment in September 2011. In November 2011, RJR Tobacco filed a notice to invoke discretionary jurisdiction of the Florida Supreme Court. In May 2013, the Florida Supreme Court accepted jurisdiction, and the case will be submitted without oral argument. A decision is pending.

On February 25, 2010, in Grossman v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., a case filed in December 2007 in the Circuit Court, Broward County, Florida, the court declared a mistrial due to the jury’s inability to reach a decision. The plaintiff alleged that as a result of an addiction to cigarettes, the decedent, Laura Grossman, developed lung cancer and died. The plaintiff sought damages in excess of $15,000 and all taxable costs and interest. Retrial began in March 2010. In April 2010, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff in Phase I, and in Phase II awarded $1.9 million in compensatory damages and no punitive damages. The jury also found RJR Tobacco to be 25% at fault, the decedent to be 70% at fault and the decedent’s spouse to be 5% at fault. Final judgment was entered in June 2010, in the amount of $483,682. In July 2011, RJR Tobacco filed a notice of appeal to the Fourth DCA, and posted a supersedeas bond in the amount of approximately $484,000. The plaintiff filed a notice of cross appeal. In June 2012, the Fourth DCA entered an opinion that affirmed the trial court’s judgment, but remanded the case for a new trial on all Phase II issues. In October 2012, RJR Tobacco filed a notice to invoke the discretionary jurisdiction of the Florida Supreme Court. A decision is pending. Retrial began on July 11, 2013. On July 31, 2013, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, found the decedent to be 25% at fault and RJR Tobacco to be 75% at fault, and awarded $15.35 million in compensatory damages and $22.5 million in punitive damages. Final judgment was entered in August 2013 and did not include a reduction for comparative fault. RJR Tobacco filed a notice of appeal to the Fourth DCA and the plaintiff filed a notice of cross appeal in October 2013. RJR Tobacco’s original bond was returned, and RJR Tobacco posted a new bond in the amount of $5 million. Briefing is underway.

On March 10, 2010, in Douglas v. Philip Morris USA, Inc., a case filed in October 2007 in Circuit Court, Hillsborough County, Florida, a jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff, found the decedent, Charlotte Douglas, to be 50% at fault, RJR Tobacco to be 5% at fault and the remaining defendants to be 45% at fault, and awarded $5 million in compensatory damages. No punitive damages were awarded. The plaintiff alleged that as a result of the decedent’s addiction to smoking the defendants’ cigarettes, she suffered bodily injury and died. In March 2010, the court entered final judgment against RJR Tobacco in the amount of $250,000. RJR Tobacco filed a notice of appeal to the Second DCA, and posted a supersedeas bond in the amount of $250,000. On March 30, 2012, the Second DCA affirmed the trial court’s decision. However, the court agreed that the issue of due process is one that will be applicable to the many Engle Progeny cases being considered by the trial courts and certified the question regarding the due process issue to the Florida Supreme Court as being one of great importance. RJR Tobacco filed a notice to invoke the discretionary jurisdiction of the Florida Supreme Court. The Florida Supreme Court accepted jurisdiction and, in March 2013, affirmed the Second DCA’s ruling for the plaintiff and found that accepting as res judicata the eight Phase I findings approved inEngle does not violate the tobacco companies’ due process rights. RJR Tobacco’s petition for writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court was denied on October 7, 2013. RJR Tobacco paid the judgment on October 31, 2013.

On March 10, 2010, in Cohen v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., a case filed in May 2007 in the Circuit Court, Broward County, Florida, a jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff. The plaintiff alleged that the decedent, Nathan Cohen, developed lung cancer as a result of using the defendants’ products, and sought in excess of $15,000 compensatory damages and unspecified punitive damages. On March 24, 2010, the jury awarded the plaintiff $10 million in compensatory damages, and found the decedent to be 33.3% at fault, RJR Tobacco to be 33.3% at fault and the remaining defendant to be 33.3% at fault. The jury also awarded $20 million in punitive damages, of which $10 million was assigned to RJR Tobacco. In July 2010, the court entered final judgment against RJR Tobacco in the amount of $3.33 million in compensatory damages and $10 million in punitive damages, and the plaintiff filed a motion to amend or alter the final judgment. The court entered an amended judgment in September 2010 to include interest from the date of the verdict. RJR Tobacco filed a notice of appeal to the Fourth DCA and posted a supersedeas bond in the amount of $2.5 million. In September 2012, the Fourth DCA affirmed the liability finding and the compensatory damages award, but reversed the finding of entitlement to punitive damages, and remanded the case for a retrial limited to the issue of liability for concealment and conspiracy. The defendants and the plaintiff filed separate notices to invoke the discretionary jurisdiction of the Florida Supreme Court in January 2013. A decision is pending.

On April 21, 2010, in Townsend v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., a case filed in December 2007 in the Circuit Court, Alachua County, Florida, a jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, found RJR Tobacco to be 51% at fault and the decedent, Frank Townsend, to be 49% at fault, and awarded $10.8 million in compensatory damages and $80 million in punitive damages. The plaintiff alleged that the decedent died from lung cancer as a result of his addiction to the defendant’s products. The trial court entered judgment in the amount of $5.5 million in compensatory damages and $40.8 million in punitive damages, which represents 51% of the original damages verdicts. RJR Tobacco appealed to the First DCA, which affirmed the compensatory damages award, but remanded the case to the trial court with instructions to remit the punitive damages award or grant a new trial on punitive damages. On remand, the trial court remitted the punitive damages award to $20 million. The plaintiff consented to the remittitur, but RJR Tobacco refused to consent and insisted on a new trial on punitive damages. Nonetheless, the trial court entered a final judgment of $5.5 million in compensatory damages and $20 million in punitive damages. RJR Tobacco again appealed. In the second appeal, the First DCA held that the remitted punitive award was not excessive and that RJR Tobacco could not reject the remittitur and insist on a new trial. Following the denial of its post decision motions in the First DCA, RJR Tobacco filed a notice to invoke the discretionary jurisdiction of the Florida Supreme Court in September 2013. A decision is pending.

On April 26, 2010, in Putney v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., a case filed in December 2007 in the Circuit Court, Broward County, Florida, a jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, found the decedent, Margot Putney, to be 35% at fault, RJR Tobacco to be 30% at fault and the remaining defendants to be 35% at fault, and awarded $15.1 million in compensatory damages and $2.5 million in punitive damages each against RJR Tobacco and the remaining defendants. The plaintiff alleged that the decedent suffered from nicotine addiction and lung cancer as a result of using the defendants’ products. In August 2010, final judgment was entered against RJR Tobacco in the amount of $4.5 million in compensatory damages, and $2.5 million in punitive damages. RJR Tobacco filed a notice of appeal and the plaintiff filed a notice of cross appeal. In December 2010, the court entered an amended final judgment to provide that interest would run from April 26, 2010. The defendants filed a joint notice of appeal to the Fourth DCA of the amended final judgment, and RJR Tobacco posted a supersedeas bond in the amount of approximately $2.4 million. In June 2013, the Fourth DCA held that the court erred in denying the defendants’ motion for remittitur of the compensatory damages for loss of consortium and in striking the defendants’ statute of repose affirmative defenses. As a result, the verdict was reversed, and the case was remanded for further proceedings. The plaintiff’s motion for rehearing, written opinion on one issue, or certification of conflict to the Florida Supreme Court was denied in August 2013. The defendants and the plaintiff filed separate notices to invoke the discretionary jurisdiction of the Florida Supreme Court in September 2013. Decisions are pending.

On May 20, 2010, in Buonomo v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., a case filed in October 2007 in the Circuit Court, Broward County, Florida, a jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, found RJR Tobacco to be 77.5% at fault and the decedent, Matthew Buonomo, to be 22.5% at fault, and awarded $5.2 million in compensatory damages and $25 million in punitive damages. The plaintiff alleged that the decedent was addicted to cigarettes and, as a result, developed one or more smoking related medical conditions and/or diseases. Post-trial motions were denied, but the court, in accordance with the Florida statutory limitation on punitive damage awards, ordered the punitive damage award of $25 million be reduced to $15.7 million — three times the compensatory damages award of $5.2 million. In August 2010, the court entered final judgment in the amount of $4.06 million in compensatory damages and $15.7 million in punitive damages. RJR Tobacco filed a notice of appeal to the Fourth DCA and posted a supersedeas bond in the amount of $5 million. The plaintiff also filed a notice of appeal. In September 2013, the Fourth DCA affirmed the final judgment and damages award to the plaintiff on strict liability and negligence. However, the court reversed the judgment entered for the plaintiff on the claims for fraudulent concealment and conspiracy to commit fraud by concealment due to the erroneous striking of RJR Tobacco’s statute of repose defense. As a result, the punitive damages award was set aside and remanded for a new trial. In December 2013, the Fourth DCA denied RJR Tobacco’s motion for rehearing. On January 10, 2014, RJR Tobacco and the plaintiff filed notices to invoke the discretionary jurisdiction of the Florida Supreme Court. Decisions are pending.

On October 15, 2010, in Frazier v. Philip Morris USA Inc., a case filed in December 2007 in the Circuit Court, Miami-Dade County, Florida, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the defendants. The plaintiff alleged that as a result of smoking defendants’, including RJR Tobacco’s, products she developed chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Final judgment was entered in February 2011. The plaintiff filed a notice of appeal to the Third DCA, and the defendants filed a cross appeal. On April 11, 2012, the Third DCA reversed the trial court’s judgment, directed entry of judgment in the plaintiff’s favor and ordered a new trial. In July 2012, the defendants filed a notice to invoke the discretionary jurisdiction of the Florida Supreme Court. The Florida Supreme Court accepted jurisdiction of the case in September 2013. Oral argument in the Florida Supreme Court is scheduled for April 10, 2014. The new trial is scheduled for July 21, 2014.

On October 29, 2010, in Koballa v. Philip Morris USA Inc., a case filed in December 2007, in the Circuit Court, Volusia County, Florida against tobacco industry defendants, including RJR Tobacco, the court declared a mistrial after the jury informed the court that they were unable to reach a verdict. The plaintiff alleged that as a result of the use of the defendants’ defective and unreasonably dangerous tobacco products, she suffers from, or has suffered from, nicotine addiction, lung cancer and other smoking related medical conditions and/or diseases. Retrial began on March 21, 2011, and on March 31, 2011, the jury returned an inconsistent verdict. The jury found that RJR Tobacco was not liable for the plaintiff’s injuries, but found that her past injuries were worth $1 million with the plaintiff being 70% at fault and RJR Tobacco 30% at fault. The court entered final judgment in August 2011. RJR Tobacco filed a notice of appeal to the Fifth DCA, and posted a supersedeas bond in the amount of $300,000. In September 2012, the Fifth DCA affirmed the trial court’s judgment, per curiam. RJR Tobacco’s motion for a written opinion was granted in October 2012. In November 2012, RJR Tobacco filed a notice to invoke the discretionary jurisdiction of the Florida Supreme Court. A decision is pending.

On November 15, 2010, in Webb v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., a case filed in December 2007, in the Circuit Court, Levy County, Florida, a jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, found RJR Tobacco to be 90% at fault and the decedent, James Horner, to be 10% at fault, and awarded $8 million in compensatory damages and $72 million in punitive damages. The plaintiff alleged that as a result of smoking the defendant’s products, the decedent developed one or more smoking related diseases. The court entered judgment, and RJR Tobacco appealed to the First DCA and posted a supersedeas bond in the amount of $5 million. That court affirmed the liability verdict, but ordered a remittitur or a new trial on damages. On remand, the trial court remitted the compensatory damages award to $4 million and the punitive damages award to $25 million. The plaintiff consented to the remitted judgment, and RJR Tobacco rejected the remittitur and demanded a new trial on damages. Nonetheless, the trial court entered the remitted judgment. RJR Tobacco again appealed to the First DCA. In the second appeal, the First DCA found that the trial court erred in concluding that only the plaintiff had the right to choose between accepting the remittitur and proceeding with a new trial. The First DCA thus ordered a new trial on damages. The plaintiff’s motion for rehearing was denied in January 2014.

On February 10, 2011, in Kirkland v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., a case filed in January 2008, in the Circuit Court, Hillsborough County, Florida, a jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, found RJR Tobacco to be 10% at fault and the plaintiff to be 90% at fault, and awarded $100,000 in compensatory damages. The jury also awarded the plaintiff $250,000 in punitive damages. The plaintiff alleged that he was addicted to cigarettes, and as a result, developed larynx cancer and other smoking related medical conditions and/or diseases. Final judgment was entered in March 2011. The plaintiff filed a notice of appeal to the Second DCA on April 12, 2011. RJR Tobacco filed a notice of cross appeal and posted a supersedeas bond in the amount of $260,000. In January 2012, the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed his appeal. In December 2013, the Second DCA affirmed the trial court’s judgment, per curiam. RJR Tobacco filed a motion for a written opinion in January 2014. A decision is pending.

On March 18, 2011, in Mack v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., a case filed in June 2008, in the Circuit Court, Alachua County, Florida, a jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, found RJR Tobacco to be 51% at fault and the decedent, Peter Mack, Sr., to be 49% at fault, and awarded $1 million in compensatory damages. No punitive damages were awarded. The plaintiff alleged that due to the decedent’s addiction to cigarettes, he developed bronchitis and lung cancer. In April 2011, final judgment was entered in favor of the plaintiff. RJR Tobacco appealed, and the First DCA reversed the trial court’s judgment and remanded the case for a new trial. Retrial began on December 3, 2012. On December 14, 2012, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, found the decedent to be 35% at fault and RJR Tobacco to be 65% at fault and awarded $2.9 million in compensatory damages. Final judgment was entered in December 2012. RJR Tobacco filed a notice of appeal to the First DCA and posted a supersedeas bond in the amount of $1.9 million. Briefing is underway.

On April 13, 2011, in Tullo v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., a case filed in December 2007, in the Circuit Court, Palm Beach County, Florida, a jury returned a verdict in favor of RJR Tobacco and the plaintiff, but against the remaining defendants. The jury awarded $4.5 million in compensatory damages and no punitive damages. The jury found the decedent, Dominick Tullo, to be 45% at fault and the remaining defendants cumulatively to be 55% at fault. The plaintiff alleged that the decedent was addicted to cigarettes manufactured by the defendants, and as a result, developed chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and other smoking related illnesses and/or diseases. The plaintiff sought in excess of $15,000 against each defendant, taxable costs and interest. The court denied the plaintiff’s motion for a new trial against RJR Tobacco and denied the remaining defendants’ post-trial motions in June 2011. The remaining defendants filed an appeal to the Fourth DCA, and the plaintiff filed a cross appeal. The plaintiff also filed a notice of appeal of the order denying the plaintiff’s motion for new trial against RJR Tobacco. RJR Tobacco filed a cross appeal of the same order. In August 2013, the Fourth DCA affirmed the final judgment entered by the trial court, including the jury’s verdict of no liability to RJR Tobacco. The Fourth DCA denied the plaintiff’s motion for clarification in September 2013. The remaining defendants filed a notice to invoke the discretionary jurisdiction of the Florida Supreme Court in October 2013. A decision is pending.

On April 26, 2011, in Andy Allen v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., a case filed in September 2007, in the Circuit Court, Duval County, Florida, a jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, found RJR Tobacco to be 45% at fault, the decedent, Patricia Allen, to be 40% at fault and the remaining defendant to be 15% at fault, and awarded $6 million in compensatory damages and $17 million in punitive damages against each defendant. The plaintiff alleged that as a result of smoking the defendants’ products, the decedent developed chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Final judgment was entered against RJR Tobacco in the amount of $19.7 million in May 2011. In October 2011, the trial court entered a remittitur of the punitive damages to $8.1 million and denied all other post-trial motions. The defendants filed a joint notice of appeal, RJR Tobacco posted a supersedeas bond in the amount of $3.75 million, and the plaintiff filed a notice of cross appeal in November 2011. In May 2013, the First DCA reversed the trial court’s judgment and remanded the case for a new trial. The plaintiff’s motion for rehearing or rehearing en banc was denied in July 2013. The new trial has not been scheduled. In August 2013, the plaintiff filed a notice to invoke the discretionary jurisdiction of the Florida Supreme Court. A decision is pending.

On May 20, 2011, in Jewett v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., a case filed in December 2007, in the Circuit Court, Duval County, Florida, a jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, found RJR Tobacco to be 20% at fault, the decedent, Barbara Jewett, to be 70% at fault and the remaining defendant to be 10% at fault, and awarded $1.1 million in compensatory damages and no punitive damages. The plaintiff alleged that the decedent, Barbara Jewett, was addicted to cigarettes and as a result of her addiction, developed chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, emphysema and respiratory failure. Final judgment was entered in June 2011. RJR Tobacco filed a notice of appeal to the First DCA and posted a supersedeas bond in the amount of $218,600. In November 2012, the First DCA reversed the judgment and remanded the case for a new trial. The plaintiff and the defendants filed separate notices to invoke the discretionary jurisdiction of the Florida Supreme Court in March 2013. Decisions are pending.

On June 16, 2011, in Soffer v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., a case filed in December 2007, in the Circuit Court, Alachua County, Florida, a jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, found RJR Tobacco to be 40% at fault, the decedent, Maurice Soffer, to be 60% at fault, and awarded $5 million in compensatory damages and no punitive damages. The plaintiff alleged that the decedent was addicted to cigarettes and, as a result, developed lung cancer and other smoking related conditions and/or diseases. Final judgment was entered against RJR Tobacco in the amount of $2 million. The plaintiff filed a notice of appeal to the First DCA in July 2011. RJR Tobacco filed a notice of cross appeal and posted a supersedeas bond in the amount of $2 million. In October 2012, the First DCA affirmed the trial court’s ruling in full. On the direct appeal, the court held that only intentional torts could support a punitive damages claim and held that Engle Progeny plaintiffs may not seek punitive damages for negligence or strict liability because the originalEngle class did not seek punitive damages for those claims. The First DCA certified the question to the Florida Supreme Court as one of great public importance. On the cross appeal, the court rejected RJR Tobacco’s arguments about the use of the Engle findings and the statute of limitations. RJR Tobacco filed a motion for rehearing or for certification to the Florida Supreme Court and the plaintiff filed a motion for rehearing or rehearing en banc. In January 2013, the First DCA granted rehearing on RJR Tobacco’s cross appeal to clarify that the trial court’s application of Engle findings did not violate RJR Tobacco’s due process rights. Otherwise, rehearing, rehearing en banc and certification were denied. RJR Tobacco and the plaintiff have both filed notices to invoke the discretionary jurisdiction of the Florida Supreme Court. Decisions are pending.

On July 15, 2011, in Ciccone v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., a case filed in August 2004, in the Circuit Court, Broward County, Florida, a jury returned a verdict finding the plaintiff is a member of the Engle class. The plaintiff alleged that as a result of the use of the defendant’s tobacco products, the decedent, George Ciccone, suffered from nicotine addiction and one or more smoking related diseases and/or medical conditions. On July 21, 2011, the jury awarded approximately $3.2 million in compensatory damages and $50,000 in punitive damages. The jury found the decedent to be 70% at fault and RJR Tobacco to be 30% at fault. Final judgment was entered in September 2011, and RJR Tobacco filed a notice of appeal to the Fourth DCA. RJR Tobacco posted a supersedeas bond in the amount of approximately $1 million on October 17, 2011. In August 2013, the Fourth DCA affirmed the judgment of the trial court, but reversed the punitive damages award and remanded the case to the trial court for entry of a final judgment that eliminates the punitive damages award. RJR Tobacco’s motion for rehearing or rehearing en banc was denied in November 2013. RJR Tobacco filed a notice to invoke the discretionary jurisdiction of the Florida Supreme Court in December 2013. A decision is pending.

On September 15, 2011, in Ojeda v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., a case filed in October 2007, in the Circuit Court, Miami-Dade County, Florida, a jury returned a verdict in favor of RJR Tobacco. The plaintiff alleged that as a result of the use of the defendant’s products, the decedent, Juan Ojeda, suffered from one or more smoking related medical conditions and/or diseases. Final judgment was entered September 26, 2011. The plaintiff filed a notice of appeal to the Third DCA in October 2012. Briefing is underway.

On November 28, 2011, in Sury v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., a case filed in November 2007, in the Circuit Court, Duval County, Florida, a jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, found the decedent, William Sury, to be 60% at fault, RJR Tobacco to be 20% at fault, and the remaining defendant to be 20% at fault, and awarded $1 million in compensatory damages and no punitive damages. The plaintiff alleged that as a result of the use of the defendants’ products, the decedent suffered from lung cancer. Final judgment was entered in March 2012. The court entered an amended final judgment that held the defendants jointly and severally liable for the entire $1 million, even though the jury had allocated 60% of fault to the plaintiff and 20% of fault to a co-defendant. The defendants filed a notice of appeal to the First DCA on April 20, 2012, and RJR Tobacco posted a supersedeas bond in the amount of $500,000. In June 2013, the First DCA affirmed the final judgment. RJR Tobacco’s motion for rehearing was denied in August 2013. In January 2014, the Florida Supreme Court denied RJR Tobacco’s petition for review of the First DCA’s decision.

On January 24, 2012, in Hallgren v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., a case filed in April 2007, in the Circuit Court, Highlands County, Florida, a jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, found the decedent, Claire Hallgren, to be 50% at fault, RJR Tobacco to be 25% at fault, and the remaining defendant to be 25% at fault, and awarded $2 million in compensatory damages and $750,000 in punitive damages against each defendant. The plaintiff alleged that the decedent was addicted to the defendants’ products, and as a result, suffered from lung cancer. In March 2012, the court entered final judgment in the amount of approximately $1 million for which RJR Tobacco and the other defendant are jointly and severally liable; and $750,000 in punitive damages against each defendant. The defendants filed a joint notice of appeal to the Second DCA, and RJR Tobacco posted a supersedeas bond in the amount of approximately $1.3 million in May 2012. The plaintiff filed a notice of cross appeal. In October 2013, the Second DCA affirmed the trial court’s ruling that punitive damages can be awarded for negligence and strict liability claims as well as for the intentional tort claims brought under Engle. The court certified a conflict with the First DCA’s decision in Soffer and the Fourth DCA’s decision in Ciccone. The court also certified the following questions to be of great public importance — “Are members of the Engle class who pursue individual damages actions in accordance with the decision in Engle v. Liggett Group, Inc., entitled to pursue punitive damages under claims for strict liability and negligence?” In November 2013, the defendants filed a notice to invoke the discretionary jurisdiction of the Florida Supreme Court. A decision is pending.

On January 25, 2012, in Ward v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., a case filed in December 2007, in the Circuit Court, Escambia County, Florida, a jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, found the decedent, Mattie Ward, to be 50% at fault, RJR Tobacco to be 30% at fault, and the remaining defendants, collectively, to be 20% at fault, and awarded $1 million in compensatory damages and $1.7 million in punitive damages. The plaintiff alleged that the decedent was addicted to the defendants’ products, and as a result, suffered from chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and other smoking related conditions and/or diseases. In March 2012, the court entered final judgment in the amount of $487,000 in compensatory damages, for which RJR Tobacco and the other defendants are jointly and severally liable; and $1.7 million in punitive damages against RJR Tobacco. RJR Tobacco filed a notice of appeal to the First DCA and posted a supersedeas bond in the amount of $2.19 million in June 2012. The plaintiff filed a notice of cross appeal. In September 2013, the First DCA affirmed the trial court’s judgment, per curiam. RJR Tobacco’s motion for rehearing was denied in October 2013. RJR Tobacco paid $2.4 million in satisfaction of the judgment on January 31, 2014.

On February 29, 2012, in Marotta v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., a case filed in December 2007, in the Circuit Court, Broward County, Florida, the court declared a mistrial during jury prequalification. The plaintiff alleged that the decedent, Phil Marotta, was addicted to cigarettes and, as a result, suffered from lung cancer. The plaintiff sought compensatory damages in excess of $75,000, including compensatory and punitive damages, costs and pre-judgment interest. Retrial began on March 7, 2013. On March 20, 2013, a jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, found the decedent to be 42% at fault and RJR Tobacco to be 58% at fault and awarded $6 million in compensatory damages and no punitive damages. Final judgment was entered against RJR Tobacco in the amount of $3.48 million, and RJR Tobacco filed a notice of appeal to the Fourth DCA in April 2013. The plaintiff filed a notice of cross appeal in May 2013. Briefing is underway.

On March 19, 2012, in McCray v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., a case filed in January 2008, in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, a jury returned a verdict in favor of the defendants, including RJR Tobacco. The plaintiff alleged that the decedent, Mercedia Walker, was addicted to the defendants’ tobacco products, and as a result, suffered from one or more smoking related diseases and/or medical conditions. The plaintiff sought compensatory damages for all injuries and losses, all recoverable costs of the case, and all legally recoverable interest. Final judgment was entered in March 2012. The plaintiff filed a notice of appeal to the Eleventh Circuit in July 2012. Oral argument is scheduled for March 4, 2014.

On March 27, 2012, in Emmon Smith v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., a case filed in January 2008 in the Circuit Court, Jackson County, Florida, a jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, found Mr. Smith to be 30% at fault and RJR Tobacco to be 70% at fault, and awarded $10 million in compensatory damages. The jury also awarded $20 million in punitive damages. The plaintiff alleged that he was addicted to cigarettes manufactured by the defendants, and as a result, developed lung cancer. Final judgment was entered on April 2, 2012. RJR Tobacco filed a notice of appeal to the First DCA and posted a supersedeas bond in the amount of $5 million. In November 2013, the First DCA affirmed the judgment of the trial court, per curiam. In December 2013, RJR Tobacco filed a motion for issuance of a written opinion, certification and rehearing en banc. A decision is pending.

On April 10, 2012, in Duke v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., a case filed in December 2007, in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, a jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, found the decedent, Sarah Duke, to be 75% at fault and RJR Tobacco to be 25% at fault, and awarded $30,705 in compensatory damages and no entitlement to punitive damages. The plaintiff alleged that as a result of the use of the defendant’s products, the decedent developed smoking related diseases. The plaintiff sought compensatory and punitive damages, including costs and interest. RJR Tobacco filed a notice of appeal to the Eleventh Circuit in September 2012. In November 2012, RJR Tobacco posted a supersedeas bond in the amount of approximately $7,800. In February 2013, the Eleventh Circuit granted the joint motion to consolidate the appeal with the appeal in Walker v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., discussed below. In September 2013, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the jury verdict in favor of the plaintiff. RJR Tobacco’s petition for panel rehearing or rehearing en banc was denied on January 6, 2014. The deadline to file a petition for writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court is April 7, 2014.

On May 17, 2012, in Calloway v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., a case filed in December 2007, in the Circuit Court, Broward County, Florida, a jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, found the decedent, Johnnie Calloway, to be 20.5% at fault, RJR Tobacco to be 27% at fault, and the remaining defendants collectively to be 52.5% at fault, and awarded $20.5 million in compensatory damages and $17.25 million in punitive damages against RJR Tobacco and $37.6 million collectively against the remaining defendants. The plaintiff alleged that as a result of using the defendants’ products, the decedent became addicted and developed smoking-related diseases and/or conditions. The plaintiff sought compensatory and punitive damages, including costs and interest. In its ruling on the post-trial motions, the court determined that the jury’s apportionment of comparative fault did not apply to the compensatory damages award. Final judgment was entered in August 2012. In September 2012, the defendants filed a notice of appeal to the Fourth DCA, and RJR Tobacco posted a supersedeas bond in the amount of $1.5 million. The plaintiff filed a notice of cross appeal. Briefing is underway.

On May 21, 2012, in Walker v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., a case filed in August 2007, in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, a jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, found the decedent, Albert Walker, to be 90% at fault and RJR Tobacco to be 10% at fault, and awarded $275,000 in compensatory damages with no entitlement to punitive damages. The plaintiff alleged that as a result of the use of the defendant’s products, the decedent suffered bodily injury. The plaintiff sought compensatory and punitive damages, including costs and interest. The court entered final judgment in May 2012. RJR Tobacco filed a notice of appeal to the Eleventh Circuit and posted a supersedeas bond in the amount of $27,775. In February 2013, the Eleventh Circuit granted the joint motion to consolidate the appeal with the appeal in Duke v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., discussed above. RJR Tobacco posted a substitute supersedeas bond in the amount of approximately $45,800 in June 2013. In September 2013, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the jury verdict in favor of the plaintiff. RJR Tobacco’s petition for panel rehearing or rehearing en banc was denied on January 6, 2014. The deadline to file a petition for writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court is April 7, 2014.

On August 1, 2012, in Hiott v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., a case filed in January 2008, in the Circuit Court, Duval County, Florida, a jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, found the decedent, Kenneth Hiott, to be 60% at fault and RJR Tobacco to be 40% at fault, and awarded $1.83 million in compensatory damages and no punitive damages. The plaintiff alleged that as a result of using the defendant’s product, the decedent suffered from addiction and smoking related diseases and/or conditions. The plaintiff sought an unspecified amount of compensatory and punitive damages. In November 2012, final judgment was entered against RJR Tobacco in the amount of $730,000 in compensatory damages. RJR Tobacco filed a notice of appeal to the First DCA and posted a supersedeas bond in the amount of $730,000 in December 2012. In January 2014, the First DCA affirmed the trial court’s decision. RJR Tobacco is preparing to seek review with the Florida Supreme Court.

On August 1, 2012, in Denton v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., a case filed in August 2007, in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, a jury found the defendants liable, but allocated 100% of fault to the decedent, Linda Denton. The plaintiff alleged that as a result of using the defendants’ products, the decedent suffered from smoking related diseases and/or conditions. The plaintiff sought an unspecified amount of compensatory and punitive damages. Final judgment was entered on August 8, 2012. The plaintiff’s motion for a new trial was denied in November 2013. The plaintiff did not seek further review of the case.

On August 10, 2012, in Hancock v. Philip Morris USA, Inc., a case filed in January 2008, in the Circuit Court, Miami-Dade County, Florida, a jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, found the decedent, Edna Siwieck, to be 90% at fault, RJR Tobacco to be 5% at fault and the remaining defendant to be 5% at fault. However, the jury did not award compensatory damages and found that the plaintiff was not entitled to punitive damages. The court determined that the jury verdict was inconsistent due to the parties previously stipulating to $110,200 in medical expenses, which is subject to the allocation of fault. The defendants agreed to an additur for that amount. The plaintiff alleged that as a result of using the defendants’ products, the decedent suffered from chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. The plaintiff sought an unspecified amount of compensatory and punitive damages, costs and interest. Final judgment was entered against RJR Tobacco in the amount of $705 in October 2012. The stipulated amount was reduced by the defendants’ motion to reduce economic damages by collateral sources. The plaintiff filed a notice of appeal to the Fourth DCA, and the defendants filed a notice of cross appeal in November 2012. Briefing is underway.

On September 19, 2012, in Baker v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., a case filed in November 2007, in the Circuit Court, Palm Beach County, Florida, a jury returned a verdict in favor of the defendant, RJR Tobacco. The plaintiff alleged that as a result of using the defendant’s products, the decedent, Elmer Baker, suffered from lung cancer. The plaintiff sought compensatory damages in excess of $15,000, costs and interest. Final judgment was entered in January 2013, in favor of RJR Tobacco. The plaintiff filed a notice of appeal to the Fourth DCA and RJR Tobacco filed a notice of cross appeal in February 2013. Briefing is underway.

On September 20, 2012, in Sikes v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., a case filed in December 2007, in the Circuit Court, Duval County, Florida, a jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, found the decedent, Jimmie Sikes, to be 49% at fault and RJR Tobacco to be 51% at fault, and awarded $4.1 million in compensatory damages and $2 million in punitive damages. The plaintiff alleged that as a result of using the defendant’s product, the decedent suffered from chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Final judgment was entered against RJR Tobacco in the amount of $6.1 million on June 3, 2013. The court entered a corrected final judgment against RJR Tobacco in the amount of $5.5 million and vacated the June 3, 2013 final judgment. RJR Tobacco filed a notice of appeal to the First DCA, and posted a supersedeas bond in the amount of $5 million in July 2013. Briefing is underway.

On October 17, 2012, in James Smith v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., a case filed in August 2007, in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, a jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, found the decedent, Wanette Smith, to be 45% at fault and RJR Tobacco to be 55% at fault, and awarded $600,000 in compensatory damages and $20,000 in punitive damages. The plaintiff alleged that as a result of using the defendant’s products, the decedent suffered from lung cancer and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. The plaintiff sought compensatory and punitive damages, costs and interest. Final judgment was entered against RJR Tobacco in the amount of $620,000. Post-trial motions were denied in August 2013. RJR Tobacco filed a notice of appeal to the Eleventh Circuit and posted a supersedeas bond in the amount of approximately $620,000 in September 2013. Briefing is underway.

On October 18, 2012, in Schlenther v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., a case filed in January 2008, in the Circuit Court, Hillsborough County, Florida, a jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, found the decedent, Beverly Schlenther, to be 50% at fault and RJR Tobacco to be 50% at fault, and awarded $5 million in compensatory damages and $2.5 million in punitive damages. The plaintiff alleged that as a result of using the defendant’s products, the decedent suffered from chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and heart disease. The plaintiff sought compensatory and punitive damages, costs and interest. In April 2013, the court vacated the punitive damage award, granted a new trial on entitlement to punitive damages and the amount of any such damages and abated the new trial pending the Florida Supreme Court decision in Soffer v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., described above. The plaintiff filed a notice of appeal to the Second DCA of the order granting RJR Tobacco’s motion for a new trial, and RJR Tobacco filed a notice of cross appeal of the same order. In October 2013, the trial court entered a partial final judgment against RJR Tobacco in the amount of $5.03 million in compensatory damages with no reduction for comparative fault. RJR Tobacco filed a notice of appeal of the partial final judgment. In November 2013, the plaintiff filed a motion to temporarily relinquish jurisdiction to the trial court to permit the trial court to enter a final judgment based on the decision in Hallgren, described above. The Second DCA granted the plaintiff’s motion, and jurisdiction was relinquished for 45 days. In December 2013, the trial court denied the defendant’s post-trial motions, including RJR Tobacco’s motion for a new trial, and entered final judgment against RJR Tobacco in the amount of $5 million for compensatory damages, $29,705 for funeral expenses and $2.5 million in punitive damages. Both parties filed voluntary dismissals of their prior appeals. RJR Tobacco subsequently filed a notice of appeal to the Second DCA of the final judgment and posted a supersedeas bond in the amount of $5 million. Briefing is underway.

On October 19, 2012, in Ballard v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., a case filed in September 2007 in the Circuit Court, Miami-Dade County, Florida, a jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, found the plaintiff to be 45% at fault and RJR Tobacco to be 55% at fault, and awarded $8.55 million in compensatory damages. Punitive damages were not at issue. The plaintiff alleged that as a result of using the defendant’s products, he suffers from bladder cancer and emphysema. The court entered final judgment against RJR Tobacco in the amount of $4.7 million in October 2012, and in August 2013, the court entered an amended final judgment against RJR Tobacco in the amount of $5 million. RJR Tobacco filed a notice of appeal to the Third DCA and posted a supersedeas bond in the amount of $5 million in October 2013. Briefing is underway.

On October 25, 2012, in Lock v. Philip Morris USA, Inc., a case filed in November 2007, in the Circuit Court, Pinellas County, Florida, a jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, found the plaintiff to be 82% at fault, RJR Tobacco to be 9% at fault and the remaining defendant to be 9% at fault, and awarded $1.15 million in compensatory damages. Punitive damages were not at issue. The plaintiff alleged that as a result of using the defendants’ products, he suffers from lung cancer. Final judgment was entered against RJR Tobacco and the remaining defendants in the amount of $103,500 each. The defendants filed a joint notice of appeal to the Second DCA in March 2013, and RJR Tobacco posted a supersedeas bond in the amount of $103,500. Briefing is underway.

On December 12, 2012, in Virginia Williams v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., a case filed in December 2007, in the Circuit Court, Miami-Dade County, Florida, a jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, found the decedent, Milton Williams, to be 15% at fault and RJR Tobacco to be 85% at fault, and awarded $5 million in compensatory damages. Punitive damages were not sought. The plaintiff alleged that as a result of using the defendant’s products, the decedent suffered from pharyngeal cancer. Final judgment was entered against RJR Tobacco in the amount of $4.25 million in compensatory damages in January 2013. RJR Tobacco filed a notice of appeal to the Third DCA and posted a supersedeas bond in the amount of $4.25 million, and the plaintiff filed a notice of cross appeal in August 2013. Briefing is underway.

On February 11, 2013, in Evers v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., a case filed in November 2007, in the Circuit Court, Hillsborough County, Florida, a jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, found the decedent, Jacqueline Loyd, to be 31% at fault, RJR Tobacco to be 60% at fault, and the remaining defendant to be 9% at fault, and awarded $3.23 million in compensatory damages and $12.36 million in punitive damages against RJR Tobacco only. The plaintiff alleged that as a result of using the defendants’ products, the decedent became addicted and suffered from smoking-related diseases and/or conditions. In March 2013, the court granted the defendants’ post-trial motions for directed verdict on fraudulent concealment, conspiracy and punitive damages. As a result, the $12.36 million punitive damages award was set aside. The plaintiff’s motion to reconsider directed verdict as to concealment, conspiracy and punitive damages was denied on April 8, 2013. The plaintiff filed a notice of appeal to the Second DCA, the defendants filed a notice of cross appeal, and RJR Tobacco posted a supersedeas bond in the amount of $1.77 million in May 2013. Briefing is underway.

On February 13, 2013, in Schoeff v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., a case filed in November 2007, in the Circuit Court, Broward County, Florida, a jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, found the decedent, James Schoeff, to be 25% at fault, RJR Tobacco to be 75% at fault, and awarded $10.5 million in compensatory damages and $30 million in punitive damages. The plaintiff alleged that as a result of using the defendant’s products, the decedent suffered from addiction and one or more smoking-related diseases and/or conditions, including lung cancer. In April 2013, final judgment was entered against RJR Tobacco in the amount of $7.88 million in compensatory damages and $30 million in punitive damages. RJR Tobacco filed a notice of appeal to the Fourth DCA, and the plaintiff filed a notice of cross appeal in May 2013. Briefing is underway.

On March 20, 2013, in Giddens v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., a case filed in January 2008, in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, a jury returned a verdict in favor of RJR Tobacco and the plaintiff and against the remaining defendant, found the decedent, Roger Giddens, to be 93% at fault and the remaining defendant to be 7% at fault and awarded $80,000 in compensatory damages and no punitive damages. The plaintiff alleged that the decedent was addicted to cigarettes manufactured by the defendants which resulted in the decedent’s death. In March 2013, final judgment was entered in favor of the plaintiff and RJR Tobacco, and against a co-defendant in the amount of $5,600. In April 2013, the parties filed a joint stipulation of dismissal with prejudice.

On April 1, 2013, in Searcy v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., a case filed in January 2008, in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, a jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, found the decedent, Carol LaSard, to be 40% at fault, RJR Tobacco to be 30% at fault and the remaining defendant to be 30% at fault, and awarded $6 million in compensatory damages and $10 million in punitive damages against each defendant. The plaintiff alleged that as a result of using the defendants’ products, the decedent suffered from lung cancer. Final judgment was entered against RJR Tobacco in the amount of $6 million in compensatory damages and $10 million in punitive damages. In September 2013, the trial court granted the defendants’ motion for a new trial, or in the alternative, reduction or remittitur of the damages awarded to the extent it sought remittitur of the damages. The compensatory damage award was remitted to $1 million, and the punitive damage award was remitted to $1.67 million against each defendant. The remaining post-trial motions were denied. The plaintiff’s motion to reconsider the trial court’s order granting in part the defendants’ motion for remittitur of the damages award was denied in October 2013. The plaintiff filed a notice of acceptance of remittitur in November 2013, and the court issued an amended final judgment. The defendants filed a joint notice of appeal to the Eleventh Circuit, and RJR Tobacco posted a supersedeas bond in the amount of approximately $2.2 million. Briefing is underway.

On April 18, 2013, in Aycock v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., a case filed in January 2008, in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, a jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, found the decedent, Richard Aycock, to be 27.5% at fault and RJR Tobacco to be 72.5% at fault, and awarded $5.9 million in compensatory damages. Punitive damages were not awarded. The plaintiff alleged that the decedent was addicted to cigarettes manufactured by the defendant and, as a result, suffered from lung cancer. Final judgment was entered against RJR Tobacco in the amount of $4.28 million in April 2013. Post-trial motions were denied in August 2013. RJR Tobacco filed a notice of appeal to the Eleventh Circuit in September 2013, and posted a supersedeas bond in the amount of $4.32 million in October 2013. Briefing is underway.

On May 2, 2013, in David Cohen v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., a case filed in December 2007, in the Circuit Court, Palm Beach County, Florida, a jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, found the decedent, Helen Cohen, to be 40% at fault, RJR Tobacco to be 30% at fault, and the remaining defendants collectively to be 30% at fault, and awarded $2.06 million in compensatory damages. The plaintiff alleged that as a result of using the defendants’ products, the decedent, Helen Cohen, became addicted and suffered from one or more smoking related diseases and/or conditions. Final judgment was entered against RJR Tobacco in the amount of $617,000 in May 2013. In July 2013, the court granted the defendants’ motion for a new trial due to the plaintiff’s improper arguments during closing. The new trial date has not been scheduled. The plaintiff filed a notice of appeal to the Fourth DCA, and the defendants filed a notice of cross appeal. Briefing is underway.

On May 22, 2013, in John Campbell v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., a case pending in Polk County, Florida, a jury returned a verdict in favor of the defendants, including RJR Tobacco. The plaintiff alleged that as a result of smoking the defendants’ products, the decedent, Judy Campbell, became addicted to smoking cigarettes and suffered from unspecified smoking related conditions and/or diseases. The plaintiff’s motion for a new trial was denied and the court entered final judgment in July 2013. The plaintiff filed a notice of appeal to the Second DCA, and the defendants filed a notice of cross appeal in August 2013. Briefing is underway.

On May 23, 2013, in Earl Graham v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., a case filed in January 2008, in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, a jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, found the decedent, Faye Graham, to be 70% at fault, RJR Tobacco to be 20% at fault and the remaining defendant to be 10% at fault, and awarded $2.75 million in compensatory damages. The plaintiff alleged that as a result of smoking the defendants’ products, the decedent became addicted to smoking cigarettes which resulted in her death. Final judgment was entered against RJR Tobacco in the amount of $550,000 in May 2013. The defendants filed a joint notice of appeal to the Eleventh Circuit, and RJR Tobacco posted a supersedeas bond in the amount of approximately $556,000 in October 2013. Briefing is underway.

On June 4, 2013, in Starr-Blundell v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., a case filed in December 2007, in the Circuit Court, Duval County, Florida, a jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, found the decedent, Lucy Mae Starr, to be 80% at fault, RJR Tobacco to be 10% at fault and the remaining defendant to be 10% at fault, and awarded $500,000 in compensatory damages. The plaintiff alleged that as a result of smoking the defendants’ products, the decedent suffered from lung cancer and other smoking relating diseases and/or conditions. Post-trial motions were denied, and the court entered final judgment in the amount of $50,000 against each defendant in November 2013. The plaintiff filed a notice of appeal to the First DCA, and the defendants filed a notice of cross appeal in December 2013. RJR Tobacco posted a supersedeas bond in the amount of $50,000. Briefing is underway.

On June 7, 2013, in Odum v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., a case filed in November 2007, in the Circuit Court, Duval County, Florida, a jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, found the decedent, Ethelene Hazouri, to be 50% at fault and RJR Tobacco to be 50% at fault, and awarded $200,000 in compensatory damages. The plaintiff alleged that as a result of smoking the defendant’s products, the decedent suffered from lung cancer. RJR Tobacco’s post-trial motions were denied in October 2013. Final judgment was entered against RJR Tobacco in the amount of $264,000 in November 2013. RJR Tobacco filed a notice of appeal to the First DCA and posted a supersedeas bond in the amount of approximately $264,000 in December 2013. Briefing is underway.

On June 12, 2013, in Weinstein v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., a case filed in December 2007, in the Circuit Court, Palm Beach County, Florida, a jury returned a verdict in favor of RJR Tobacco. The plaintiff alleged that as a result of smoking the defendant’s products, the decedent, Irwin Weinstein, suffered from chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. The plaintiff’s motion for a new trial was denied, and final judgment was entered in August 2013. The plaintiff filed a notice of appeal to the Fourth DCA in September 2013, and RJR Tobacco filed a notice of cross appeal. Briefing is underway.

On June 14, 2013, in Skolnick v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., a case filed in December 2007, in the Circuit Court, Palm Beach County, Florida, a jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, found the decedent, Leo Skolnick, to be 40% at fault, RJR Tobacco to be 30% at fault and the remaining defendant to be 30% at fault, and awarded $2.56 million in compensatory damages. The plaintiff alleged that as a result of using the defendants’ products, the decedent suffered from lung cancer. The court entered final judgment against RJR Tobacco in the amount of $766,500 in July 2013. Post-trial motions were denied in December 2013, and final judgment was entered against RJR Tobacco in the amount of approximately $767,000. The defendants filed a joint notice of appeal to the Fourth DCA, and the plaintiff filed a notice of cross appeal. Briefing is underway.

On June 19, 2013, in Thibault v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., a case pending in the Circuit Court, Escambia County, Florida, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, found the decedent, Evelyn Thibault, to be 30% at fault and RJR Tobacco to be 70% at fault, and awarded $1.75 million in compensatory damages and $1.28 million in punitive damages. The plaintiff alleged that as a result of using the defendant’s products, the decedent suffered from chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. The court determined that comparative fault did not apply to reduce the amount of the verdict. In June 2013, the court entered final judgment against RJR Tobacco in the amount of $3.03 million. Post-trial motions were denied, and RJR Tobacco filed a notice of appeal to the First DCA in August 2013. RJR Tobacco posted a supersedeas bond in the amount of $3.03 million in September 2013. Briefing is underway.

On August 20, 2013, in Dombey v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., a case pending in Broward County, Florida, a jury returned a verdict in favor of the defendants, including RJR Tobacco. The plaintiff alleged that as a result of smoking the defendants’ products, the decedent, Daniel Dombey, developed one or more smoking related conditions and/or diseases. Final judgment was entered in September 2013. The plaintiff did not seek further review of the case.

On September 20, 2013, in Gafney v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., a case pending in Palm Beach County, Florida, a jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, found the decedent, Frank Gafney, to be 34% at fault, RJR Tobacco to be 33% at fault and the remaining defendant to be 33% at fault, and awarded $5.8 million in compensatory damages. Punitive damages were not awarded. The plaintiff alleged that as a result of smoking the defendants’ products, the decedent developed chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Final judgment was entered against RJR Tobacco in the amount of $1.9 million in September 2013. Post-trial motions were denied in November 2013. The defendants filed a joint notice of appeal to the Fourth DCA, and RJR Tobacco posted a supersedeas bond in the amount of $1.9 million. The plaintiff filed a notice of cross appeal. Briefing is underway.

On September 24, 2013, in Haldeman v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., a case pending in Marion County, Florida, a jury returned a verdict in favor of the defendants, including RJR Tobacco. The plaintiff alleged that as a result of smoking the defendants’ products, the decedent, Margaret McEniry, developed one or more smoking related conditions or diseases, including pancreatic cancer. Final judgment was entered in favor of the defendants in October 2013. The plaintiff did not seek further review of the case.

On September 30, 2013, in Crawford v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., a case pending in Miami-Dade County, Florida, a jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, found the plaintiff to be 30% at fault and RJR Tobacco to be 70% at fault, and awarded $9 million in compensatory damages and $1 million in punitive damages. The plaintiff alleged that as a result of smoking the defendant’s products, he suffered from addiction and one or more smoking related conditions and/or diseases. Post-trial motions were denied and final judgment was entered against RJR Tobacco in the amount of $9 million in compensatory damages and $1 million in punitive damages. RJR Tobacco filed a notice of appeal to the Third DCA and posted a supersedeas bond in the amount of $5 million. Briefing is underway.

On October 4, 2013, in Hildegard Brown v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., a case filed in November 2007, in the Circuit Court, Escambia County, Florida, a jury returned a verdict in favor of RJR Tobacco. The plaintiff alleged that as a result of smoking the defendant’s products, the decedent, William Brown, suffered from lung cancer. Final judgment was entered in October 2013. The plaintiff did not seek further review of the case.

On November 14, 2013, in Blasco v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed RJR Tobacco during jury selection. The case was filed in December 2007, in the Circuit Court, Miami-Dade County, Florida. The plaintiff alleged that as a result of smoking the defendants’ products, the decedent, Eduardo Blasco, suffered from lung cancer. Trial continued against Philip Morris USA, Inc. only.

On November 15, 2013, in Chamberlain v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., a case filed in January 2008, in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, a jury returned a verdict in favor of the defendants, including RJR Tobacco. The plaintiff alleged that as a result of smoking the defendants’ products, he suffers from chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and lung cancer. Final judgment was entered in favor of the defendants in November 2013. The plaintiff filed a motion for a new trial in December 2013. A decision is pending.

In addition, below is a description of the Engle Progeny cases against RJR Tobacco or B&W, or both, which went to trial or were decided since the end of the fourth quarter of 2013.

On January 9, 2014, in Bush v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., a case filed in December 2007, in the Circuit Court, Escambia County, Florida, the court declared a mistrial due to the inability to seat a jury. The plaintiff alleged that as a result of his use of the defendants’ products, he suffers from nicotine addiction and one or more smoking related diseases and/or conditions. A new trial will be scheduled at a later date.

On January 13, 2014, in Meeker v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., a case filed in January 2008, in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, a jury returned a verdict in favor of RJR Tobacco. The plaintiff alleged that as a result of his use of the defendant’s products, he suffers from addiction and one or more smoking related diseases and/or conditions. Final judgment was entered on January 14, 2014.

On January 17, 2014, in Cuculino v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., a case filed in December 2007, in the Circuit Court, Miami-Dade County, Florida, a jury returned a verdict in favor of RJR Tobacco and against the remaining defendant. The plaintiff alleged that as a result of his use of the defendants’ products, he suffers from one or more smoking related diseases and/or conditions.

On April 18, 2013, in Anderson v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., a case pending in Hillsborough County, Florida, the court declared a mistrial due to the jury’s inability to reach a decision. The plaintiff alleged that as a result of using the defendant’s products, the decedent, Daniel Begley, suffered from esophageal cancer. Retrial began on January 6, 2014. On January 24, 2014, a jury returned a verdict in favor of RJR Tobacco.

On January 27, 2014, in Harford v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., a case filed in January 2008, in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, a jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, found the plaintiff to be 82% at fault and RJR Tobacco to be 18% at fault, and awarded $330,000 in compensatory damages. The plaintiff alleged that as a result of his use of the defendant’s products, he suffers from addiction and lung cancer.

On January 31, 2014, in Cheeley v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., a case filed in November 2007, in the Circuit Court, Broward County, Florida, a jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, found the decedent, Georgia Cheeley, to be 50% at fault and RJR Tobacco to be 50% at fault, and awarded $3 million in compensatory damages and $2 million in punitive damages. The plaintiff alleged that as a result of smoking the defendant’s products, the decedent suffered from one or more smoking related conditions or diseases.

On February 3, 2014, in Deshaies v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., a case filed in January 2008, in the U. S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, a jury returned a verdict in favor of RJR Tobacco. The plaintiff alleged that as a result of smoking the defendant’s products, he suffers from one or more smoking related conditions or diseases.

Broin II Cases

RJR Tobacco, B&W and other cigarette manufacturer defendants settled Broin v. Philip Morris, Inc. in October 1997. This case had been brought in Florida state court on behalf of flight attendants alleged to have suffered from diseases or ailments caused by exposure to ETS in airplane cabins. The settlement agreement required the participating tobacco companies to pay a total of $300 million in three annual $100 million installments, allocated among the companies by market share, to fund research on the early detection and cure of diseases associated with tobacco smoke. It also required those companies to pay a total of $49 million for the plaintiffs’ counsel’s fees and expenses. RJR Tobacco’s portion of these payments was approximately $86 million; B&W’s portion of these payments was approximately $57 million. The settlement agreement bars class members from bringing aggregate claims or obtaining punitive damages and also bars individual claims to the extent that they are based on fraud, misrepresentation, conspiracy to commit fraud or misrepresentation, RICO, suppression, concealment or any other alleged intentional or willful conduct. The defendants agreed that, in any individual case brought by a class member, the defendant will bear the burden of proof with respect to whether ETS can cause certain specifically enumerated diseases, referred to as “general causation.” With respect to all other issues relating to liability, including whether an individual plaintiff’s disease was caused by his or her exposure to ETS in airplane cabins, referred to as “specific causation,” the individual plaintiff will have the burden of proof. On September 7, 1999, the Florida Supreme Court approved the settlement. The Broin IIcases arose out of the settlement of this case.

On October 5, 2000, the Broin court entered an order applicable to all Broin II cases that the terms of the Broin settlement agreement do not require the individual Broin II plaintiffs to prove the elements of strict liability, breach of warranty or negligence. Under this order, there is a rebuttable presumption in the plaintiffs’ favor on those elements, and the plaintiffs bear the burden of proving that their alleged adverse health effects actually were caused by exposure to ETS in airplane cabins, that is, specific causation.

As of December 31, 2013, there were 2,572 Broin II lawsuits pending in Florida. There have been no Broin II trials since 2007.

Class-Action Suits

Overview. As of December 31, 2013, eight class-action cases were pending in the United States against RJR Tobacco or its affiliates or indemnitees. In 1996, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in Castano v. American Tobacco Co. overturned the certification of a nation-wide class of persons whose claims related to alleged addiction to tobacco products. Since this ruling by the Fifth Circuit, most class-action suits have sought certification of state-wide, rather than nation-wide, classes. Class-action suits based on claims similar to those asserted in Castano or claims that class members are at a greater risk of injury or injured by the use of tobacco or exposure to ETS are pending against RJR Tobacco and its affiliates and indemnitees in state or federal courts in California, Illinois, Louisiana, Missouri, and West Virginia. All pending class-action cases are discussed below.

The pending class actions against RJR Tobacco or its affiliates or indemnitees include four cases alleging that the use of the term “lights” constitutes unfair and deceptive trade practices under state law or violates the federal RICO statute. Such suits are pending in state or federal courts in Illinois and Missouri and are discussed below under “— ‘Lights’ Cases.”

Finally, certain third-party payers have filed health-care cost recovery actions in the form of class actions. These cases are discussed below under “— Health-Care Cost Recovery Cases.”

Few smoker class-action complaints have been certified or, if certified, have survived on appeal. Eighteen federal courts, including two courts of appeals, and most state courts that have considered the issue have rejected class certification in such cases. Apart from the Castano case discussed above, only two smoker class actions have been certified by a federal court — In re Simon (II) Litigation, and Schwab [McLaughlin] v. Philip Morris USA, Inc., both of which were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York and ultimately decertified.

California Business and Professions Code Case. In Sateriale v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., a class action filed in November 2009 in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, the plaintiffs brought the case on behalf of all persons who tried unsuccessfully to redeem Camel Cash certificates from 1991 through March 31, 2007, or who held Camel Cash certificates as of March 31, 2007. The plaintiffs allege that in response to the defendants’ action to discontinue redemption of Camel Cash as of March 31, 2007, customers, like the plaintiffs, attempted to exchange their Camel Cash for merchandise and that the defendants, however, did not have any merchandise to exchange for Camel Cash. The plaintiffs allege unfair business practices, deceptive practices, breach of contract and promissory estoppel. The plaintiffs seek injunctive relief, actual damages, costs and expenses. In January 2010, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss, which prompted the plaintiffs to file an amended complaint in February 2010. The class definition changed to a class consisting of all persons who reside in the U.S. and tried unsuccessfully to redeem Camel Cash certificates, from October 1, 2006 (six months before the defendant ended the Camel Cash program) or who held Camel Cash certificates as of March 31, 2007. The plaintiffs also brought the class on behalf of a proposed California subclass, consisting of all California residents meeting the same criteria. In May 2010, RJR Tobacco’s motion to dismiss the amended complaint for lack of jurisdiction over subject matter and, alternatively, for failure to state a claim was granted with leave to amend. The plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint. In July 2010, RJR Tobacco’s motion to dismiss the second amended complaint was granted with leave to amend. The plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint, and RJR Tobacco filed a motion to dismiss in September 2010. In December 2010, the court granted RJR Tobacco’s motion to dismiss with prejudice. Final judgment was entered by the court, and the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal, in January 2011. In July 2012, the appellate court affirmed the dismissal of the plaintiffs’ claims under the Unfair Competition Law and the Consumer Legal Remedies Acts and reversed the dismissal of the plaintiffs’ claims for promissory estoppel and breach of contract. RJR Tobacco’s motion for rehearing or rehearing en banc was denied in October 2012. RJR Tobacco filed its answer to the plaintiffs’ third amended complaint in December 2012. Trial is scheduled for November 4, 2014.

“Lights” Cases. As noted above, “lights” class-action cases are pending against RJR Tobacco or B&W in Illinois (2) and Missouri (2). The classes in these cases generally seek to recover $50,000 to $75,000 per class member for compensatory and punitive damages, injunctive and other forms of relief, and attorneys’ fees and costs from RJR Tobacco and/or B&W. In general, the plaintiffs allege that RJR Tobacco or B&W made false and misleading claims that “lights” cigarettes were lower in tar and nicotine and/or were less hazardous or less mutagenic than other cigarettes. The cases typically are filed pursuant to state consumer protection and related statutes.

Many of these “lights” cases were stayed pending review of the Good v. Altria Group, Inc. case by the U.S. Supreme Court. In that “lights” class-action case against Altria Group, Inc. and Philip Morris USA, the U.S. Supreme Court decided that these claims are not preempted by the Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act or by the Federal Trade Commission’s, referred to as FTC, historic regulation of the industry. Since this decision in December 2008, a number of the stayed cases have become active again.

The seminal “lights” class-action case involves RJR Tobacco’s competitor, Philip Morris, Inc. Trial began in Price v. Philip Morris, Inc. in January 2003. In March 2003, the trial judge entered judgment against Philip Morris in the amount of $7.1 billion in compensatory damages and $3 billion in punitive damages. Based on Illinois law, the bond required to stay execution of the judgment was set initially at $12 billion. Philip Morris pursued various avenues of relief from the $12 billion bond requirement. On December 15, 2005, the Illinois Supreme Court reversed the lower court’s decision and sent the case back to the trial court with instructions to dismiss the case. On December 5, 2006, the trial court granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss and for entry of final judgment. The case was dismissed with prejudice the same day. In December 2008, the plaintiffs filed a petition for relief from judgment, stating that the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Good v. Altria Group, Inc. rejected the basis for the reversal. The trial court granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ petition for relief from judgment in February 2009. In March 2009, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the Illinois Appellate Court, Fifth Judicial District, requesting a reversal of the February 2009 order and remand to the circuit court. On February 24, 2011, the appellate court entered an order, concluding that the two-year time limit for filing a petition for relief from a final judgment began to run when the trial court dismissed the plaintiffs’ lawsuit on December 18, 2006. The appellate court therefore found that the petition was timely, reversed the order of the trial court, and remanded the case for further proceedings. Philip Morris filed a petition for leave to appeal to the Illinois Supreme Court. On September 28, 2011, the Illinois Supreme Court denied Philip Morris’s petition for leave to appeal and returned the case to the trial court for further proceedings. In December 2012, the trial court denied the plaintiffs’ petition for relief from the judgment. The plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the Illinois Appellate Court, Fifth Judicial District. Oral argument occurred on October 23, 2013. A decision is pending.

In Turner v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., a case filed in February 2000 in Circuit Court, Madison County, Illinois, a judge certified a class in November 2001. In June 2003, RJR Tobacco filed a motion to stay the case pending Philip Morris’s appeal of the Price v. Philip Morris Inc. case mentioned above, which the judge denied in July 2003. In October 2003, the Illinois Fifth District Court of Appeals denied RJR Tobacco’s emergency stay/supremacy order request. In November 2003, the Illinois Supreme Court granted RJR Tobacco’s motion for a stay pending the court’s final appeal decision in Price. On October 11, 2007, the Illinois Fifth District Court of Appeals dismissed RJR Tobacco’s appeal of the court’s denial of its emergency stay/supremacy order request and remanded the case to the Circuit Court. A status conference is scheduled for May 28, 2014.

In Howard v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., another case filed in February 2000 in Circuit Court, Madison County, Illinois, a judge certified a class in December 2001. In June 2003, the trial judge issued an order staying all proceedings pending resolution of the Price v. Philip Morris, Inc. case mentioned above. The plaintiffs appealed this stay order to the Illinois Fifth District Court of Appeals, which affirmed the Circuit Court’s stay order in August 2005. There is currently no activity in the case.

A “lights” class-action case is pending against each of RJR Tobacco and B&W in Missouri. In Collora v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., a case filed in May 2000 in Circuit Court, St. Louis County, Missouri, a judge in St. Louis certified a class in December 2003. In April 2007, the court granted the plaintiffs’ motion to reassign Collora and the following cases to a single general division: Craft v. Philip Morris Companies, Inc. and Black v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., discussed below. In April 2008, the court stayed the case pending U.S. Supreme Court review in Good v. Altria Group, Inc. A nominal trial date of January 10, 2011 was scheduled, but it did not proceed at that time. A status conference is scheduled for February 2, 2015.

Finally, in Black v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., a case filed in November 2000 in Circuit Court, City of St. Louis, Missouri, B&W removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri. The plaintiffs filed a motion to remand, which was granted in March 2006. In April 2008, the court stayed the case pending U.S. Supreme Court review in Good v. Altria Group, Inc. A nominal trial date of January 10, 2011, was scheduled, but it did not proceed at that time. A status conference is scheduled for February 2, 2015.

In the event RJR Tobacco and its affiliates or indemnitees lose one or more of the pending “lights” class-action suits, RJR Tobacco, depending upon the amount of any damages ordered, could face difficulties in its ability to pay the judgment or obtain any bond required to stay execution of the judgment which could have a material adverse effect on RJR Tobacco’s, and consequently RAI’s, results of operations, cash flows or financial position.

Other Class Actions. In Young v. American Tobacco Co., Inc., a case filed in November 1997 in Circuit Court, Orleans Parish, Louisiana, the plaintiffs brought an ETS class action against U.S. cigarette manufacturers, including RJR Tobacco and B&W, and parent companies of U.S. cigarette manufacturers, including RJR, on behalf of all residents of Louisiana who, though not themselves cigarette smokers, have been exposed to secondhand smoke from cigarettes which were manufactured by the defendants, and who allegedly suffered injury as a result of that exposure. The plaintiffs seek to recover an unspecified amount of compensatory and punitive damages. In March 2013, the court entered an order staying the case, including all discovery, pending the implementation of the smoking cessation program ordered by the court in Scott v. The American Tobacco Co.

In Parsons v. A C & S, Inc., a case filed in February 1998 in Circuit Court, Ohio County, West Virginia, the plaintiff sued asbestos manufacturers, U.S. cigarette manufacturers, including RJR Tobacco and B&W, and parent companies of U.S. cigarette manufacturers, including RJR, seeking to recover $1 million in compensatory and punitive damages individually and an unspecified amount for the class in both compensatory and punitive damages. The class was brought on behalf of persons who allegedly have personal injury claims arising from their exposure to respirable asbestos fibers and cigarette smoke. The plaintiffs allege that Mrs. Parsons’ use of tobacco products and exposure to asbestos products caused her to develop lung cancer and to become addicted to tobacco. In December 2000, three defendants, Nitral Liquidators, Inc., Desseaux Corporation of North American and Armstrong World Industries, filed bankruptcy petitions in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware, In re Armstrong World Industries, Inc.Pursuant to section 362(a) of the Bankruptcy Code, Parsons is automatically stayed with respect to all defendants.

Finally, in Jones v. American Tobacco Co., Inc., a case filed in December 1998 in Circuit Court, Jackson County, Missouri, the defendants removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri in February 1999. The action was brought against the major U.S. cigarette manufacturers, including RJR Tobacco and B&W, and parent companies of U.S. cigarette manufacturers, including RJR, by tobacco product users and purchasers on behalf of all similarly situated Missouri consumers. The plaintiffs allege that their use of the defendants’ tobacco products has caused them to become addicted to nicotine. The plaintiffs seek to recover an unspecified amount of compensatory and punitive damages. The case was remanded to the Circuit Court in February 1999. There is currently no activity in this case.

Health-Care Cost Recovery Cases

Health-care cost recovery cases have been brought by a variety of plaintiffs. Other than certain governmental actions, these cases largely have been unsuccessful on remoteness grounds, which means that one who pays an injured person’s medical expenses is legally too remote to maintain an action against the person allegedly responsible for the injury.

As of December 31, 2013, two health-care cost recovery cases were pending in the United States against RJR Tobacco, B&W, as its indemnitee, or both, as discussed below after the discussion of the State Settlement Agreements. A limited number of claimants have filed suit against RJR Tobacco, its current or former affiliates, B&W and other tobacco industry defendants to recover funds for health care, medical and other assistance paid by foreign provincial governments in treating their citizens. For additional information on these cases, see “— International Cases” below.

State Settlement Agreements. In June 1994, the Mississippi Attorney General brought an action, Moore v. American Tobacco Co., against various industry members, including RJR Tobacco and B&W. This case was brought on behalf of the state to recover state funds paid for health care and other assistance to state citizens suffering from diseases and conditions allegedly related to tobacco use. Most other states, through their attorneys general or other state agencies, sued RJR Tobacco, B&W and other U.S. cigarette manufacturers based on similar theories. The cigarette manufacturer defendants, including RJR Tobacco and B&W, settled the first four of these cases scheduled for trial — Mississippi, Florida, Texas and Minnesota — by separate agreements with each such state.

On November 23, 1998, the major U.S. cigarette manufacturers, including RJR Tobacco and B&W, entered into the Master Settlement Agreement with attorneys general representing the remaining 46 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Guam, the Virgin Islands, American Samoa and the Northern Marianas. Effective on November 12, 1999, the MSA settled all the health-care cost recovery actions brought by, or on behalf of, the settling jurisdictions and released various additional present and future claims.

In the settling jurisdictions, the MSA released RJR Tobacco, B&W, and their affiliates and indemnitees, including RAI, from:

•

all claims of the settling states and their respective political subdivisions and other recipients of state health-care funds, relating to past conduct arising out of the use, sale, distribution, manufacture, development, advertising, marketing or health effects of, the exposure to, or research, statements or warnings about, tobacco products; and

•

all monetary claims of the settling states and their respective political 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.

Set forth below are tables depicting the unadjusted tobacco industry settlement payment schedule and the settlement payment schedule for RAI’s operating subsidiaries under the State Settlement Agreements, and related information for 2011 and beyond:

Unadjusted Original Participating Manufacturers’ Settlement Payment Schedule


	2011		2012		2013		2014		2015		2016		2017		Thereafter
First Four States’ Settlements:⁽¹⁾
Mississippi Annual Payment	$	136	$	136	$	136	$	136	$	136	$	136	$	136	$	136
Florida Annual Payment		440		440		440		440		440		440		440		440
Texas Annual Payment		580		580		580		580		580		580		580		580
Minnesota Annual Payment		204		204		204		204		204		204		204		204
Remaining Jurisdictions’ Settlement:
Annual Payments⁽¹⁾		8,004		8,004		8,004		8,004		8,004		8,004		8,004		8,004

Total	$	9,364	$	9,364	$	9,364	$	9,364	$	9,364	$	9,364	$	9,364	$	9,364

RAI’s Operating Subsidiaries’ Settlement Expenses and Payment Schedule

Settlement expenses	$	2,435	$	2,370	$	1,819		—		—		—		—		—
Settlement cash payments	$	2,492	$	2,414	$	2,582		—		—		—		—		—
Projected settlement expenses							$	>1,900	$	>1,900	$	>1,900	$	>2,000	$	>2,000
Projected settlement cash payments							$	>2,000	$	>1,900	$	>1,900	$	>1,900	$	>2,000

⁽¹⁾	Subject to adjustments for changes in sales volume, inflation and other factors. All payments are to be allocated among the companies on the basis of relative market share. For further information, see “— State Settlement Agreements — Enforcement and Validity; Adjustments” below.

The State Settlement Agreements also contain provisions restricting the marketing of tobacco products. Among these provisions are restrictions or prohibitions on the use of cartoon characters, brand-name sponsorships, apparel and other merchandise, outdoor and transit advertising, payments for product placement, free sampling and lobbying. Furthermore, the State Settlement Agreements required the dissolution of three industry-sponsored research and trade organizations.

The State Settlement Agreements have materially adversely affected RJR Tobacco’s shipment volumes. RAI believes that these settlement obligations may materially adversely affect the results of operations, cash flows or financial position of RAI and RJR Tobacco in future periods. The degree of the adverse impact will depend, among other things, on the rate of decline in U.S. cigarette sales in the premium and value categories, RJR Tobacco’s share of the domestic premium and value cigarette categories, and the effect of any resulting cost advantage of manufacturers not subject to the State Settlement Agreements.

U.S. Department of Justice Case. On September 22, 1999, in United States v. Philip Morris USA Inc., the U.S. Department of Justice brought an action against RJR Tobacco, B&W and other tobacco companies in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The government initially sought to recover federal funds expended by the federal government in providing health care to smokers who developed diseases and injuries alleged to be smoking-related, based on several federal statutes. In addition, the government sought, pursuant to the civil provisions of RICO, disgorgement of profits the government contends were earned as a consequence of a RICO racketeering “enterprise.” In September 2000, the court dismissed the government’s claims asserted under the Medical Care Recovery Act as well as those under the Medicare Secondary Payer provisions of the Social Security Act, but did not dismiss the RICO claims. In February 2005, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled that disgorgement is not an available remedy in this case. The government’s petition for writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court was denied in October 2005. The non-jury, bench trial began in September 2004, and closing arguments concluded in June 2005.

On August 17, 2006, the court found certain defendants, including RJR Tobacco and B&W, liable for the RICO claims, but did not impose any direct financial penalties. The court instead enjoined the defendants from committing future racketeering acts, participating in certain trade organizations, making misrepresentations concerning smoking and health and youth marketing, and using certain brand descriptors such as “low tar,” “light,” “ultra light,” “mild” and “natural.” The court also ordered defendants to issue “corrective communications” on five subjects, including smoking and health and addiction, and to comply with further undertakings, including maintaining web sites of historical corporate documents and disseminating certain marketing information on a confidential basis to the government. In addition, the court placed restrictions on the ability of the defendants to dispose of certain assets for use in the United States, unless the transferee agrees to abide by the terms of the court’s order, and ordered the defendants to reimburse the U.S. Department of Justice its taxable costs incurred in connection with the case.

Certain defendants, including RJR Tobacco, filed notices of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia in September 2006. The government filed its notice of appeal in October 2006. In addition, the defendants, including RJR Tobacco, filed joint motions asking the district court to clarify and to stay its order pending the defendants’ appeal. On September 28, 2006, the district court denied the defendants’ motion to stay. On September 29, 2006, the defendants, including RJR Tobacco, filed a motion asking the court of appeals to stay the district court’s order pending the defendants’ appeal. The court granted the motion in October 2006.

In November 2006, the court of appeals stayed the appeals pending the trial court’s ruling on the defendants’ motion for clarification. The defendants’ motion was granted in part and denied in part. The defendants’ motion as to the meaning and applicability of the general injunctive relief of the August 2006 order was denied. The request for clarification as to the scope of the provisions in the order prohibiting the use of descriptors and requiring corrective statements at retail point of sale was granted. The court also ruled that the provisions prohibiting the use of express or implied health messages or descriptors do apply to the actions of the defendants taken outside of the United States.

In May 2009, the U.S. Court of Appeals largely affirmed the finding of liability against the tobacco defendants and remanded to the trial court for dismissal of the trade organizations. The court also largely affirmed the remedial order, including the denial of additional remedies, but vacated the order and remanded for further proceedings as to the following four discrete issues:

•

the issue of the extent of Brown & Williamson Holdings Inc.’s control over tobacco operations was remanded for further fact finding and clarification;

•

the remedial order was vacated to the extent that it binds all defendants’ subsidiaries and was remanded to the lower court for determination as to whether inclusion of the subsidiaries and which of the subsidiaries satisfy Rule 65(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure;

•

the court held that the provision found in paragraph four of the injunction, concerning the use of any express or implied health message or health descriptor for any cigarette brand, should not be read to govern overseas sales. The issue was remanded to the lower court with instructions to reformulate it so as to exempt foreign activities that have no substantial, direct and foreseeable domestic effects; and

•

the remedial order was vacated regarding “point of sale” displays and remanded for the district court to evaluate and make due provisions for the rights of innocent persons, either by abandoning this part of the remedial order or re-crafting a new version reflecting the rights of third parties.

RJR Tobacco and the other defendants, as well as the Department of Justice, filed petitions for writ of certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court in February 2010. In June 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court denied the parties’ petitions for writ of certiorari.

Post-remand proceedings are underway to determine the extent to which the original order will be implemented. On December 22, 2010, the trial court dismissed Brown & Williamson Holdings, Inc. from the litigation. On March 3, 2011, the defendants filed a motion for vacatur, in which they moved to vacate the trial court’s injunctions and factual findings and dismiss the case in its entirety. The court denied the motion on June 1, 2011. The defendants filed a notice of appeal. In addition, the parties to the lawsuit entered into an agreement concerning certain technical obligations regarding their public websites. Pursuant to this agreement, RJR Tobacco agreed to deposit $3.125 million over three years into the registry of the district court. In July 2012, the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit affirmed the trial court’s denial of the defendants’ motion to vacate the injunctions. In November 2012, the trial court entered an order wherein the court determined the language to be included in the text of the corrective statements and directed the parties to engage in discussions with the Special Master to implement them. The defendants filed a notice of appeal of that order on January 25, 2013. In February 2013, the appellate court granted the defendants’ motion to hold the case in abeyance pending the District Court’s resolution of corrective statement implementation issues. The mediation process on implementation issues has largely concluded. In the fourth quarter of 2013, $10 million was accrued for the estimated costs of the corrective communications. On January 10, 2014, the parties jointly filed a motion seeking entry of a consent order to govern implementation issues. On January 22, 2014, the district court held a status conference to discuss the proposed consent order. At that status conference, the court asked questions about the proposed consent order and heard from all parties in response to those questions. The court then asked all parties to file a written submission by February 18, 2014.

Native American Tribe Case. As of December 31, 2013, one Native American tribe case was pending before a tribal court against RJR Tobacco and B&W, Crow Creek Sioux Tribe v. American Tobacco Co., a case filed in September 1997 in Tribal Court, Crow Creek Sioux, South Dakota. The plaintiffs seek to recover actual and punitive damages, restitution, funding of a clinical cessation program, funding of a corrective public education program, and disgorgement of unjust profits from sales to minors. The plaintiffs claim that the defendants are liable under the following theories: unlawful marketing and targeting of minors, contributing to the delinquency of minors, unfair and deceptive acts or practices, unreasonable restraint of trade and unfair method of competition, negligence, negligence per se, conspiracy and restitution of unjust enrichment. The case is dormant.

International Cases. Nine health-care reimbursement cases have been filed against RJR Tobacco, its current or former affiliates, or B&W outside the United States, by nine Canadian provinces. The remaining Canadian province, the Province of Nova Scotia, has indicated an intention to file a similar case. In these actions, foreign governments are seeking to recover for health care, medical and other assistance paid and to be paid in treating their citizens for tobacco-related disease. No such actions are pending in the United States. Pursuant to the terms of the 1999 sale of RJR Tobacco’s international tobacco business, RJR Tobacco has tendered the defense of these actions to JTI. Subject to a reservation of rights, JTI has assumed the defense of RJR Tobacco and its current or former affiliates.

•

British Columbia — In 1997, British Columbia enacted a statute, subsequently amended, which created a civil cause of action for the government to recover the costs of health-care benefits incurred for insured populations of British Columbia residents resulting from tobacco-related disease. An action brought on behalf of the Province of British Columbia pursuant to the statute against Canadian and non-Canadian tobacco-related entities, including RJR Tobacco and certain of its affiliates, was dismissed in February 2000 when the British Columbia Supreme Court ruled that the legislation was unconstitutional and set aside service ex juris against the foreign defendants for that reason. British Columbia then enacted a revised statute, pursuant to which an action was filed in January 2001 against many of the same defendants, including RJR Tobacco and one of its affiliates, in Supreme Court, British Columbia. In that action, the British Columbia government seeks to recover the present value of its total expenditures for health-care benefits provided for insured persons resulting from tobacco-related disease or the risk of tobacco-related disease caused by alleged breaches of duty by the manufacturers, the present value of its estimated total expenditures for health-care benefits that reasonably could be expected to be provided for those insured persons resulting from tobacco-related disease or the risk of tobacco-related disease in the future, court ordered interest, and costs, or in the alternative, special or increased costs. The government alleges that the defendants are liable under the British Columbia statute by reason of their “tobacco related wrongs,” which are alleged to include: selling defective products, failure to warn, sale of cigarettes to children and adolescents, strict liability, deceit and misrepresentation, violation of trade practice and competition acts, concerted action, and joint liability. A jurisdictional challenge brought by RJR Tobacco and its affiliate was dismissed. RJR Tobacco and its affiliate filed statements of defense in January 2007. Pretrial discovery is ongoing.

•

New Brunswick — In March 2008, a case was filed on behalf of Her Majesty the Queen in Right of the Province of New Brunswick, Canada, against Canadian and non-Canadian tobacco-related entities, including RJR Tobacco’s predecessor and one of RJR Tobacco’s affiliates, in the Trial Division in the Court of Queen’s Bench of New Brunswick. The claim is brought pursuant to New Brunswick legislation enacted in 2008, which legislation is substantially similar to the revised British Columbia statute described above. In this action, the New Brunswick government seeks to recover essentially the same types of damages that are being sought in the British Columbia action described above based on analogous theories of liability. RJR Tobacco and its affiliate filed statements of defense in March 2010. Pretrial discovery is ongoing.

•

Ontario — In September 2009, a case was filed on behalf of the Province of Ontario, Canada, against Canadian and non-Canadian tobacco-related entities, including RJR Tobacco and one of its affiliates, in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice. The claim is brought pursuant to Ontario legislation enacted in 2009, which legislation is substantially similar to the revised British Columbia statute described above. In this action, the Ontario government seeks to recover essentially the same types of damages that are being sought in the British Columbia and New Brunswick actions described above based on analogous theories of liability, although the government also asserted claims based on the illegal importation of cigarettes, which claims were deleted in an amended statement of claim filed in August 2010. A jurisdictional challenge brought by RJR Tobacco and its affiliate was dismissed. Preliminary motions are pending.

•

Newfoundland and Labrador — In February 2011, a case was filed on behalf of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada against Canadian and non-Canadian tobacco-related entities, including RJR Tobacco and one of its affiliates, in the General Trial Division of the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador. The claim is brought pursuant to legislation passed in Newfoundland in 2001 and proclaimed in February 2011, which legislation is substantially similar to the revised British Columbia statute described above. In this action, the Newfoundland government seeks to recover essentially the same types of damages that are being sought in the British Columbia and other provincial actions described above based on analogous theories of liability. RJR Tobacco and its affiliate have brought a motion challenging the jurisdiction of the Newfoundland court. A decision is pending.

•

Quebec — In June 2012, a case was filed on behalf of the Province of Quebec, Canada, against Canadian and non-Canadian tobacco-related entities, including RJR Tobacco and one of its affiliates, in the Superior Court of the Province of Quebec, District of Montreal. The claim is brought pursuant to legislation enacted in Quebec in 2009, which legislation is substantially similar to the revised British Columbia statute described above. In this action, the Quebec government seeks to recover essentially the same types of damages that are being sought in the British Columbia and other provincial actions described above based on analogous theories of liability. RJR Tobacco and its affiliate have brought a motion challenging the jurisdiction of the Quebec court, which was dismissed. Preliminary motions are pending. Separately, in August 2009, certain Canadian manufacturers filed a constitutional challenge to the Quebec statute, and the decision regarding that challenge has been reserved.

•

Manitoba — In May 2012, a case was filed on behalf of the Province of Manitoba, Canada, against Canadian and non-Canadian tobacco-related entities, including RJR Tobacco and one of its affiliates, in the Court of Queen’s Bench, Winnipeg Judicial Centre, Manitoba. The claim is brought pursuant to legislation assented to in 2006 and proclaimed in 2012, which legislation is substantially similar to the revised British Columbia statute described above. In this action, the Manitoba government seeks to recover essentially the same types of damages that are being sought in the British Columbia and other provincial actions described above based on analogous theories of liability. RJR Tobacco and its affiliate have brought a motion challenging the jurisdiction of the Manitoba court. A decision is pending.

•

Saskatchewan — In June 2012, a case was filed on behalf of the Province of Saskatchewan, Canada, against Canadian and non-Canadian tobacco-related entities, including RJR Tobacco and one of its affiliates, in the Court of Queen’s Bench, Judicial Centre of Saskatoon, Saskatchewan. The claim is brought pursuant to legislation assented to in 2007 and proclaimed in 2012, which legislation is substantially similar to the revised British Columbia statute described above. In this action, the Saskatchewan government seeks to recover essentially the same types of damages that are being sought in the British Columbia and other provincial actions described above based on analogous theories of liability. RJR Tobacco and its affiliate have brought a motion challenging the jurisdiction of the Saskatchewan court, which was dismissed on October 1, 2013. An application for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal for Saskatchewan has been filed.

•

Alberta — In June 2012, a case was filed on behalf of the Province of Alberta, Canada, against Canadian and non-Canadian tobacco-related entities, including RJR Tobacco and one of its affiliates, in the Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta Judicial Centre, Calgary, Alberta. The claim is brought pursuant to legislation assented to in 2009 and proclaimed in 2012, which legislation is substantially similar to the revised British Columbia statute described above. In this action, the Alberta government seeks to recover essentially the same types of damages that are being sought in the British Columbia and other provincial actions described above based on analogous theories of liability. RJR Tobacco and its affiliate have brought a motion challenging the jurisdiction of the Alberta court. A decision is pending.

•

Prince Edward Island — In September 2012, a case was filed on behalf of the Province of Prince Edward Island, Canada, against Canadian and non-Canadian tobacco-related entities, including RJR Tobacco and one of its affiliates, in the Supreme Court of Prince Edward Island (General Section), Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island. The claim is brought pursuant to legislation assented to in 2009 and proclaimed in 2012, which legislation is substantially similar to the revised British Columbia statute described above. In this action, the Prince Edward Island government seeks to recover essentially the same types of damages that are being sought in the British Columbia and other provincial actions described above based on analogous theories of liability. RJR Tobacco and its affiliate have brought a motion challenging the jurisdiction of the Prince Edward Island court. A decision is pending.

The following seven putative Canadian class actions were filed against various Canadian and non-Canadian tobacco-related entities, including RJR Tobacco and one of its affiliates, in courts in the Provinces of Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba, Nova Scotia, Ontario and Saskatchewan, although the plaintiffs’ counsel have been actively pursuing only the action pending in British Columbia at this time:

•

In Adams v. Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers’ Council, a case filed in July 2009 in the Court of Queen’s Bench for Saskatchewan against Canadian and non-Canadian tobacco-related entities, including RJR Tobacco and one of its affiliates, the plaintiff, an individual smoker, alleging her own addiction and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease resulting from the use of tobacco products, is seeking compensatory and unspecified punitive damages on behalf of a proposed class comprised of all individuals who were alive on July 10, 2009, and who have suffered, or who currently suffer, from chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, emphysema, heart disease or cancer, after having smoked a minimum of 25,000 cigarettes designed, manufactured, imported, marketed or distributed by the defendants, as well as disgorgement of revenues earned by the defendants. RJR Tobacco and its affiliate have brought a motion challenging the jurisdiction of the Saskatchewan court. A decision is pending.

•

In Dorion v. Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers’ Council, a case filed in June 2009, in the Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta against Canadian and non-Canadian tobacco-related entities, including RJR Tobacco and one of its affiliates, the plaintiff, an individual smoker, alleging her own addiction and chronic bronchitis resulting from the use of tobacco products, is seeking compensatory and unspecified punitive damages on behalf of a proposed class comprised of all individuals, including their estates, dependents and family members, who purchased or smoked cigarettes designed, manufactured, marketed or distributed by the defendants, as well as restitution of profits and reimbursement of government expenditure for health-care benefits allegedly caused by the use of tobacco products.

•

In Kunka v. Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers’ Council, a case filed in 2009 in the Court of Queen’s Bench of Manitoba against Canadian and non-Canadian tobacco-related entities, including RJR Tobacco and one of its affiliates, the plaintiff, an individual smoker, alleging her own addiction and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, severe asthma and lung disease resulting from the use of tobacco products, is seeking compensatory and unspecified punitive damages on behalf of a proposed class comprised of all individuals, including their estates, and their dependents and family members, who purchased or smoked cigarettes manufactured by the defendants, as well as restitution of profits and reimbursement of government expenditure for health care benefits allegedly caused by the use of tobacco products.

•

In Semple v. Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers’ Council, a case filed in June 2009 in the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia against Canadian and non-Canadian tobacco-related entities, including RJR Tobacco and one of its affiliates, the plaintiff, an individual smoker, alleging his own addiction and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease resulting from the use of tobacco products, is seeking compensatory and unspecified punitive damages on behalf of a proposed class comprised of all individuals, including their estates, dependents and family members, who purchased or smoked cigarettes designed, manufactured, marketed or distributed by the defendants for the period from January 1, 1954, to the expiry of the opt out period as set by the court, as well as restitution of profits and reimbursement of government expenditure for health-care costs allegedly caused by the use of tobacco products.

•

In Bourassa v. Imperial Tobacco Canada Limited, a case filed in June 2010 in the Supreme Court of British Columbia against Canadian and non-Canadian tobacco-related entities, including RJR Tobacco and one of its affiliates, the plaintiff, the heir to a deceased smoker, alleging that the deceased was addicted to and suffered emphysema resulting from the use of tobacco products, is seeking compensatory and unspecified punitive damages on behalf of a proposed class comprised of all individuals, including their estates, who were alive on June 12, 2007, and who have suffered, or who currently suffer from chronic respiratory diseases, after having smoked a minimum of 25,000 cigarettes designed, manufactured, imported, marketed, or distributed by the defendants, as well as disgorgement of revenues earned by the defendants from January 1, 1954, to the date the claim was filed. RJR Tobacco and its affiliate have filed a challenge to the jurisdiction of the British Columbia court. A decision is pending. The plaintiff filed a motion for certification in April 2012, and filed affidavits in support in August 2013.

•

In McDermid v. Imperial Tobacco Canada Limited, a case filed in June 2010 in the Supreme Court of British Columbia against Canadian and non-Canadian tobacco-related entities, including RJR Tobacco and one of its affiliates, the plaintiff, an individual smoker, alleging his own addiction and heart disease resulting from the use of tobacco products, is seeking compensatory and unspecified punitive damages on behalf of a proposed class comprised of all individuals, including their estates, who were alive on June 12, 2007, and who have suffered, or who currently suffer from heart disease, after having smoked a minimum of 25,000 cigarettes designed, manufactured, imported, marketed, or distributed by the defendants, as well as disgorgement of revenues earned by the defendants from January 1, 1954, to the date the claim was filed. RJR Tobacco and its affiliate have filed a challenge to the jurisdiction of the British Columbia court. A decision is pending.

•

In Jacklin v. Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers’ Council, a case filed in June 2012 in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice against Canadian and non-Canadian tobacco-related entities, including RJR Tobacco and one of its affiliates, the plaintiff, an individual smoker, alleging her own addiction and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease resulting from the use of tobacco products, is seeking compensatory and unspecified punitive damages on behalf of a proposed class comprised of all individuals, including their estates, who were alive on June 12, 2007, and who have suffered, or who currently suffer from chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, heart disease, or cancer, after having smoked a minimum of 25,000 cigarettes designed, manufactured, imported, marketed, or distributed by the defendants, as well as restitution of profits, and reimbursement of government expenditure for health-care benefits allegedly caused by the use of tobacco products.

In each of these seven cases, the plaintiffs allege fraud, fraudulent concealment, breach of warranty, breach of warranty of merchantability and of fitness for a particular purpose, failure to warn, design defects, negligence, breach of a “special duty” to children and adolescents, conspiracy, concert of action, unjust enrichment, market share liability, joint liability, and violations of various trade practices and competition statutes. Pursuant to the terms of the 1999 sale of RJR Tobacco’s international tobacco business, RJR Tobacco has tendered the defense of these seven actions to JTI. Subject to a reservation of rights, JTI has assumed the defense of RJR Tobacco and its current or former affiliates in these actions.

State Settlement Agreements-Enforcement and Validity; Adjustments

As of December 31, 2013, there were 31 cases concerning the enforcement, validity or interpretation of the State Settlement Agreements in which RJR Tobacco or B&W is a party. This number includes those cases, discussed below, relating to disputed payments under the State Settlement Agreements.

The Vermont Attorney General filed suit in July 2005, in the Vermont Superior Court, Chittenden County, alleging that certain advertising for the Eclipse cigarette brand violated both the MSA and the Vermont Consumer Fraud Statute. The State of Vermont sought declaratory, injunctive, and monetary relief. The bench trial in this action began on October 6, 2008, and lasted a total of five weeks. Closing arguments occurred on March 11, 2009. On March 10, 2010, the court issued its opinion, finding that three of the advertising claims made by RJR Tobacco were not supported by the appropriate degree of scientific evidence. The court did, however, rule that the remaining six advertising claims challenged by the State of Vermont were not actionable. The court indicated that remedies and any damages to be awarded, as well as the issue of attorney’s fees and litigation expenses, will be addressed in additional proceedings. On March 22, 2010, RJR Tobacco filed a motion to amend findings of fact that it believed were demonstrably contrary to, or unsupported by, the record. On December 14, 2010, the court issued an order granting in part and denying in part RJR Tobacco’s motion. The parties conducted a mediation on the remaining issues on February 14, 2012, but failed to reach an agreement. On June 3, 2013, the court awarded $8.3 million in civil penalties and entered a permanent injunction against RJR Tobacco imposing certain limits on the “marketing, distributing, selling, promoting or advertising” within Vermont of any “non-traditional cigarette” or “potentially reduced exposure product”, referred to as PREP, with reduced risk claims, absent certain studies in support. In August 2013, the court clarified its order, ruling that the injunction applied to only non-traditional cigarettes containing tobacco and does not impact either smokeless tobacco products or PREPs generally. RJR Tobacco filed a notice of appeal on September 5, 2013. On September 18, 2013, Vermont filed a notice of cross appeal. On December 6, 2013, RJR Tobacco and the State of Vermont agreed to settle the Eclipse litigation on the following terms: (1) RJR Tobacco would pay the State $14 million to resolve any and all monetary claims that the State has asserted or might have asserted in the Eclipse litigation, including but not limited to, any and all claims for civil penalties, prejudgment interest, post-judgment interest, and the State’s claim for attorneys’ fees, expenses and costs; (2) the injunction the court imposed (limited to “non-traditional cigarette PREPs”) remains in place, and (3) both sides will withdraw their pending appeals to the Vermont Supreme Court. RJR Tobacco paid the $14 million to the State on December 13, 2013. On January 2, 2014, the Vermont Supreme Court dismissed RJR Tobacco’s appeal and the State’s cross appeal that had earlier been filed. This matter is now concluded.

In April 2005, the Mississippi Attorney General notified B&W of its intent to seek approximately $3.9 million in additional payments under the Mississippi Settlement Agreement. The Mississippi Attorney General asserts that B&W failed to report in its net operating profit or its shipments, cigarettes manufactured by B&W under contract for Star Tobacco or its parent, Star Scientific, Inc. B&W advised the State that it did not owe the state any money. In August 2005, the Mississippi Attorney General filed in the Chancery Court of Jackson County, Mississippi, a Notice of Violation, Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement, and Request for an Accounting by Defendant Brown & Williamson Holdings, Inc., formerly known as Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corporation. In this filing, Mississippi estimated that its damages exceeded $5.0 million. On August 24, 2011, the court entered an order finding in favor of the State on the Star contract manufacturing issue, that the total amount of the underpayment from B&W was approximately $3.8 million and that interest on the underpayment was approximately $4.3 million. The court also appointed a Special Master to undertake an accounting of the benefit received by B&W for failure to include its profits from Star contract manufacturing in its net operating profits reported to the State. B&W filed a motion to certify the Star contract issue for interlocutory appeal, pursuant to Rule 54 (b) of the Mississippi Rules of Civil Procedure. On January 9, 2012, that motion was denied. A ruling from the Special Master on the benefit received by B&W issue is pending.

In February 2010, the Mississippi Attorney General filed a motion alleging that RJR Tobacco had improperly failed to report shipments of certain categories of cigarette volumes, and for certain years had improperly reported its net operating profit. As a result, the State alleges that settlement payments to it were improperly reduced. RJR Tobacco disputes these allegations and is vigorously defending against them. Hearings on these issues were held on January 24-25, 2012, and May 9, 2012. On May 15, 2012, the court entered an order finding in favor of RJR Tobacco on the claim related to RJR Tobacco’s reported net operating profits in the year used as a baseline for future calculations of the State’s net operating profits payment. The State had sought $3.8 million in damages for this issue, with an additional $2.7 million in interest. On June 19, 2012, the court entered an order finding in favor of the State on the remaining issues, holding that the total amount of the underpayment was approximately $3.3 million and that interest on the underpayment was also approximately $3.3 million, though the court also held that this amount should be offset by additional payments previously made by Lorillard Tobacco Company on some of these issues. The court further ordered RJR Tobacco to perform an accounting of its profits and shipments from 1999-2011. On July 10, 2012, RJR Tobacco filed a petition with the Mississippi Supreme Court requesting leave to immediately appeal the court’s ordered accounting and its entry of judgment for the State without first conducting an evidentiary hearing. On August 15, 2012, the request was denied. An independent accountant acceptable to both the State and RJR Tobacco was identified and retained. On August 8, 2013, the final report of the independent accountant was filed with the court. The report generally found that RJR Tobacco’s accounting and reporting of information in connection with settlement payment calculations was correct. In some respects, the report expressly disagreed with findings made earlier by the trial court. On December 13, 2013, the State of Mississippi filed its report as to additional damages due it from RJR Tobacco, challenging in various respects the findings set forth in the final report of the independent accountant and seeking various changes to the damages calculations. Also on December 13, 2013, RJR Tobacco filed a motion to finalize damages of third round issues, and/or reconsider, the June 19, 2012, order requesting that the court implement the findings of the independent accountant in a final order on the damage issues and/or to revisit its earlier rulings “in light of the findings and determinations in the independent accountant’s report.” These filings are now pending before the court.

Finally, in connection with the actions brought against RJR Tobacco and B&W, the court awarded the State attorneys’ fees and expenses in an amount to be determined. On May 1, 2013, a hearing on attorneys’ fees and expenses was held before the Special Master appointed by the court. On November 19, 2013, the Special Master issued a report and recommendations on application for award of costs and attorneys’ fees. The Special Master ruled that attorneys’ fees are to be paid with respect to the settlement payment claims against B&W and RJR Tobacco at 25% of “total amounts” awarded to the State of Mississippi by the court in its August 24, 2011, ruling. This recommendation would result in an attorneys’ fee award of approximately $3.7 million, plus 25% of accumulated interest. On December 13, 2013, the State of Mississippi filed a statement regarding report of Special Master on the issue of attorneys’ fees seeking various clarifications of the Special Master’s ruling. Also on December 13, 2013, B&W and RJR Tobacco filed their objections to Special Master’s report and findings on application for award of costs and attorneys’ fees, challenging on various grounds the Special Master’s fee award. The court has not yet acted on the Special Master’s report and recommendation or the filings related thereto.

In May 2006, the State of Florida filed a motion, in the Circuit Court of the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, in and for Palm Beach County, Florida, to enforce the Florida Settlement Agreement, for an Accounting by Brown & Williamson Holdings, Inc., and for an Order of Contempt, raising substantially the same issues as raised by the Mississippi Attorney General and seeking approximately $12.4 million in additional payments under the Florida Settlement Agreement, as well as $17.0 million in interest payments. This matter is currently in the discovery phase.

NPM Adjustment Claims. The MSA includes an adjustment that potentially reduces the annual payment obligations of RJR Tobacco and the other PMs. Certain requirements, collectively referred to as the Adjustment Requirements, must be satisfied before the NPM Adjustment for a given year is available:

•

an independent auditor designated under the MSA, referred to as the Independent Auditor, must determine that the PMs have experienced a market share loss beyond a triggering threshold to those manufacturers that do not participate in the MSA, such non-participating manufacturers, referred to as NPMs; and

•

in a binding arbitration proceeding, a firm of independent economic consultants must find that the disadvantages of the MSA were a significant factor contributing to the loss. This finding is known as a significant factor determination.

When the Adjustment Requirements are satisfied, the MSA provides that the NPM Adjustment applies to reduce the annual payment obligation of the PMs. However, an individual settling state may avoid its share of the NPM Adjustment if it had in place and diligently enforced during the entirety of the relevant year a “Qualifying Statute” that imposes escrow obligations on NPMs that are comparable to what the NPMs would have owed if they had joined the MSA. In such event, the state’s share of the NPM Adjustment is reallocated to other settling states, if any, that did not have in place and diligently enforce a Qualifying Statute.

NPM Adjustment Claim for 2003. For 2003, the Adjustment Requirements were satisfied. As a result, in April 2006, RJR Tobacco placed approximately $647 million of its MSA payment into a disputed payments account, in accordance with a procedure established by the MSA. That amount represented RJR Tobacco’s share of the 2003 NPM Adjustment as calculated by the Independent Auditor. In March 2007, the Independent Auditor issued revised calculations that reduced RJR Tobacco’s share of the NPM Adjustment for 2003 to approximately $615 million. As a result, in April 2007, RJR Tobacco instructed the Independent Auditor to release to the settling states approximately $32 million from the disputed payments account.

Following RJR Tobacco’s payment of a portion of its 2006 MSA payment into the disputed payments account, 37 of the settling states filed legal proceedings in their respective MSA courts seeking declaratory orders that they diligently enforced their Qualifying Statutes during 2003 and/or orders compelling RJR Tobacco and the other PMs that placed money in the disputed payments account to pay the disputed amounts to the settling states. In response, RJR Tobacco and other PMs, pursuant to the MSA’s arbitration provisions, moved to compel arbitration of the parties’ dispute concerning the 2003 NPM Adjustment, including the states’ diligent enforcement claims, before an arbitration panel consisting of three retired federal court judges. The settling states opposed these motions, arguing, among other things, that the issue of diligent enforcement must be resolved by MSA courts in each of the 52 settling states and territories.

As of December 31, 2013, 47 of the 48 courts that had addressed the question whether the dispute concerning the 2003 NPM Adjustment is arbitrable had ruled that arbitration is required under the MSA. The Montana Supreme Court ruled that the State of Montana did not agree to arbitrate the question of whether it diligently enforced a qualifying statute. Subsequently, Montana and the PMs reached an agreement whereby the PMs agreed not to contest Montana’s claim that it diligently enforced the Qualifying Statute during 2003.

In January 2009, RJR Tobacco and certain other PMs entered into an Agreement Regarding Arbitration, referred to as the Arbitration Agreement, with 45 of the MSA settling states (representing approximately 90% of the allocable share of the settling states) pursuant to which those states agreed to participate in a multistate arbitration of issues related to the 2003 NPM Adjustment. Under the Arbitration Agreement, the signing states had their ultimate liability ,if any, with respect to the 2003 NPM Adjustment reduced by 20%, and RJR Tobacco and the other PMs that placed their share of the disputed 2005 NPM Adjustment (discussed below) into the disputed payments account, without releasing or waiving any claims, authorized the release of those funds to the settling states.

The arbitration panel contemplated by the MSA and the Arbitration Agreement, referred to as the Arbitration Panel, was selected, and proceedings before the panel with respect to the 2003 NPM Adjustment claim began in July 2010. Following the completion of document and deposition discovery, on November 3, 2011, RJR Tobacco and the other PMs advised the Arbitration Panel that they were not contesting the “diligent enforcement” of 12 states and the four Pacific territories with a combined allocable share of less than 14%. The “diligent enforcement” of the remaining 33 settling states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico was contested and has been the subject of further proceedings. A common issues hearing was held in April 2012, and state specific evidentiary hearings with respect to the contested states were initiated.

As a result of the partial settlement of certain NPM Adjustment claims, as described in more detail below, as well as the earlier decisions not to contest the diligent enforcement of 13 states, two of which are participants in the partial settlement, and the four Pacific territories, only 15 contested settling states required state specific diligent enforcement rulings. State specific evidentiary hearings were completed as of the end of May 2013.

On September 11, 2013, the Arbitration Panel issued rulings with respect to the 15 remaining contested states. The Arbitration Panel ruled that six states (representing approximately 14.68% allocable share) — Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland, Missouri, New Mexico and Pennsylvania – had not diligently enforced their Qualifying Statutes in 2003. As a result of these rulings, RJR Tobacco believes it is entitled to the maximum remaining amount with respect to its 2003 NPM Adjustment claim. RJR Tobacco presently estimates this amount to be $266 million plus interest and earnings, after reducing the Independent Auditor’s revised calculations for RJR Tobacco’s share of the 2003 NPM Adjustment claim for the impact of the Arbitration Agreement and the partial settlement of certain NPM Adjustment claims described below. All six states that were found “non-diligent” by the Arbitration Panel have filed motions to vacate and/or modify the diligent enforcement rulings on the 2003 NPM Adjustment claim. In addition, uncertainty exists as to the timing and process for how RJR Tobacco will ultimately realize its share of the remaining 2003 NPM Adjustment claim. Due to the uncertainty over the final resolution of the 2003 NPM Adjustment claim, no amounts resulting from the ruling of the Arbitration Panel have been recognized in the consolidated financial statements as of December 31, 2013.

NPM Adjustment Claims for 2004-2012. From 2006 to 2008, proceedings (including significant factor arbitrations before an independent economic consulting firm) were initiated with respect to the NPM Adjustment for 2004, 2005 and 2006. Ultimately, the Adjustment Requirements were satisfied with respect to each of these NPM Adjustments.

In June 2009, RJR Tobacco, certain other PMs and the settling states entered into an agreement with respect to the 2007, 2008 and 2009 significant factor determinations. This agreement provided that the settling states would not contest that the disadvantages of the MSA were “a significant factor contributing to” the market share loss experienced by the PMs in those years. The stipulation pertaining to each of the three years covered by the agreement became effective in February of the year a final determination by the firm of independent economic consultants would otherwise have been expected (2010, 2011 and 2012, respectively), if the issue had been arbitrated on the merits. RJR Tobacco and the PMs paid a total amount of $5 million into the States’ Antitrust/Consumer Protection Tobacco Enforcement Fund established under Section VIII(c) of the MSA for each year covered by that agreement, with RJR Tobacco paying approximately 47% of such amounts. On January 9, 2012, a new agreement with respect to significant factor determinations pertaining to 2010, 2011 and 2012 was entered into on terms essentially identical to the earlier agreement.

Based on the payment calculations of the Independent Auditor and the agreement described above regarding the 2007, 2008 and 2009 significant factor determinations, the Adjustment Requirements have been satisfied with respect to the NPM Adjustments for 2007, 2008 and 2009. In addition, based on the payment calculations of the Independent Auditor and the agreement described above regarding the 2010, 2011 and 2012 significant factor determinations, the Adjustment Requirements have been satisfied with respect to the NPM Adjustment for 2010.

The approximate maximum principal amounts of RJR Tobacco’s share of the disputed NPM Adjustments for the years 2004 through 2010, as currently calculated by the Independent Auditor, are as follows (the amounts shown below do not include the interest or earnings thereon to which RJR Tobacco believes it would be entitled under the MSA and do not reflect any reduction as a result of the Term Sheet described below):


Year for which NPM Adjustment calculated		2004		2005		2006		2007		2008		2009		2010
Year in which deduction for NPM Adjustment was taken		2007		2008		2009		2010		2011		2012		2013
RJR Tobacco’s approximate share of disputed NPM Adjustment (millions)	$	562	$	445	$	419	$	435	$	468	$	469	$	461

In addition to the NPM Adjustment claims described above, RJR Tobacco has filed dispute notices with respect to its 2011 and 2012 annual MSA payments relating to the NPM Adjustments potentially applicable to those years. The amount at issue for those two years is approximately $841 million in the aggregate.

Preliminary discussions are currently underway with the jurisdictions that have not joined the Term Sheet for the partial settlement of certain NPM Adjustment claims, described below, to initiate arbitration proceedings with respect to the 2004 NPM Adjustment.

Due to the uncertainty over the final resolution of the 2004-2012 NPM Adjustment claims asserted by RJR Tobacco, no assurances can be made related to the amounts, if any, that will be realized or any amounts (including interest) that will be owed, except as described below related to the partial settlement of certain NPM Adjustment claims.

Partial Settlement of Certain NPM Adjustment Claims. On November 14, 2012, RJR Tobacco, certain other PMs and certain settling states entered into a Term Sheet that sets forth terms on which accrued and potential NPM Adjustment claims for 2003 through 2014 could be resolved. The Term Sheet also sets forth a restructured NPM Adjustment process to be applied on a going-forward basis, starting with the 2013 volume year. The Term Sheet was provided to all of the MSA settling states for their review and consideration. The Term Sheet established December 14, 2012, as the deadline by which settling states had to indicate whether they wished to join the proposed settlement. The date the PMs and the joining settling jurisdictions would determine whether to proceed with the settlement was set as December 17, 2012. A total of 17 states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico, together representing just under 42% allocable share, determined to join the proposed settlement. RJR Tobacco and the other PMs indicated that they were prepared to go forward with the proposed settlement with that level of jurisdictional participation.

The Term Sheet provided that the Arbitration Panel currently in place to deal with the 2003 NPM Adjustment (and other NPM Adjustment-related matters) must review the proposed settlement and enter an appropriate order to confirm for the Independent Auditor that it should implement as necessary the terms of the settlement agreement.

On March 12, 2013, the Arbitration Panel entered a Stipulated Partial Settlement and Award, referred to as the Award, reflecting the financial terms of the Term Sheet. On March 29, 2013, the Independent Auditor issued a notice indicating that it intended to implement the financial provisions of the Term Sheet, and also issued various revised payment calculations pertaining to payment years 2009 through 2012 and final calculations pertaining to payment year 2013 that reflected implementation of the financial provisions of the Term Sheet.

On April 12, 2013, Oklahoma joined the Term Sheet, bringing to 20 the total number of jurisdictions that have joined the settlement, representing approximately 43% allocable share, and the Independent Auditor issued revised payment calculations reflecting the financial impact of Oklahoma’s decision to join the settlement. Subsequently, on May 24, 2013, Connecticut and South Carolina also joined the Term Sheet bringing to 22 the total number of jurisdictions that have joined the settlement, representing approximately 46% allocable share. The Independent Auditor has not yet issued revised payment calculations reflecting the financial impact of these states’ decisions to join the settlement. Efforts by two states, Colorado and Ohio, to obtain injunctions to prevent implementation of the Award were unsuccessful.

As of December 31, 2013, 13 non-settling states have motions pending, in their respective MSA courts, to vacate and/or modify the Award.

For additional information related to the Term Sheet and the Award, see “— Cost of Products Sold” in note 1.

Other NPM Matters. Separately, on August 19, 2011, Idaho sent a letter on behalf of itself and 31 other states, stating their intent to initiate arbitration with respect to whether amounts used to measure the domestic cigarette market and to calculate PM payment obligations under the MSA should be the adjusted gross or the net number of cigarettes on which federal excise tax (including arbitrios de cigarillos) is paid. The parties also agreed to arbitrate the Independent Auditor’s calculation of the volume adjustment with respect to the treatment of “roll your own,” referred to as RYO, tobacco. On January 21, 2013, the panel ruled that adjusted gross figures should be used in payment calculations and that, in the calculation of the volume adjustment, the Independent Auditor should use 0.0325 ounces of RYO tobacco to be the equivalent of one cigarette.

Antitrust Case

A number of tobacco wholesalers and consumers have sued U.S. cigarette manufacturers, including RJR Tobacco and B&W, in federal and state courts, alleging that cigarette manufacturers combined and conspired to set the price of cigarettes in violation of antitrust statutes and various state unfair business practices statutes. In these cases, the plaintiffs asked the court to certify the lawsuits as class actions on behalf of other persons who purchased cigarettes directly or indirectly from one or more of the defendants. As of December 31, 2013, all of the federal and state court cases on behalf of indirect purchasers had been dismissed.

In Smith v. Philip Morris Cos., Inc., a case filed in February 2000, and pending in District Court, Seward County, Kansas, the court granted class certification in November 2001, in an action brought against the major U.S. cigarette manufacturers, including RJR Tobacco and B&W, and the parent companies of the major U.S. cigarette manufacturers, including RJR, seeking to recover an unspecified amount in actual and punitive damages. The plaintiffs allege that the defendants participated in a conspiracy to fix or maintain the price of cigarettes sold in the United States. In an opinion dated March 23, 2012, the court granted summary judgment in favor of RJR Tobacco and B&W on the plaintiffs’ claims. On July 18, 2012, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal. A hearing on the appeal occurred on December 11, 2013, and the parties await a decision from the court.

Other Litigation and Developments

JTI Claims for Indemnification. By purchase agreement dated March 9, 1999, amended and restated as of May 11, 1999, referred to as the 1999 Purchase Agreement, RJR and RJR Tobacco sold the international tobacco business to JTI. Under the 1999 Purchase Agreement, RJR and RJR Tobacco retained certain liabilities relating to the international tobacco business sold to JTI. Under its reading of the indemnification provisions of the 1999 Purchase Agreement, JTI has requested indemnification for damages allegedly arising out of these retained liabilities. As previously reported, a number of the indemnification claims between the parties relating to the activities of Northern Brands in Canada have been resolved. The other matters for which JTI has requested indemnification for damages under the indemnification provisions of the 1999 Purchase Agreement are described below:

•

In a letter dated March 31, 2006, counsel for JTI stated that JTI would be seeking indemnification under the 1999 Purchase Agreement for any damages it may incur or may have incurred arising out of a Southern District of New York grand jury investigation, a now-terminated Eastern District of North Carolina grand jury investigation, and various actions filed by the European Community and others in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, referred to as the EDNY, against RJR Tobacco and certain of its affiliates on November 3, 2000, August 6, 2001, and (as discussed in greater detail below) October 30, 2002, and against JTI on January 11, 2002.

•

JTI also has sought indemnification relating to a Statement of Claim filed on April 23, 2010, against JTI Macdonald Corp., referred to as JTI-MC, by the Ontario Flue-Cured Tobacco Growers’ Marketing Board, referred to as the Board, Andy J. Jacko, Brian Baswick, Ron Kichler, and Aprad Dobrenty, proceeding on their own behalf and on behalf of a putative class of Ontario tobacco producers that sold tobacco to JTI-MC during the period between January 1, 1986, and December 31, 1996, referred to as the Class Period, through the Board pursuant to certain agreements. The Statement of Claim seeks recovery for damages allegedly incurred by the class representatives and the putative class for tobacco sales during the Class Period made at the contract price for duty free or export cigarettes with respect to cigarettes that, rather than being sold duty free or for export, purportedly were sold in Canada, which allegedly breached one or more of a series of contracts dated between June 4, 1986, and July 3, 1996. A motion to dismiss has been filed.

•

Finally, JTI has advised RJR and RJR Tobacco of its view that, under the terms of the 1999 Purchase Agreement, RJR and RJR Tobacco are liable for a roughly $1.7 million judgment entered in 1998, plus interest and costs, in an action filed in Brazil by Lutz Hanneman, a former employee of a former RJR Tobacco subsidiary. RJR and RJR Tobacco deny that they are liable for this judgment under the terms of the 1999 Purchase Agreement.

Although RJR and RJR Tobacco recognize that, under certain circumstances, they may have these and other unresolved indemnification obligations to JTI under the 1999 Purchase Agreement, RJR and RJR Tobacco disagree with JTI as to (1) what circumstances relating to any such matters may give rise to indemnification obligations by RJR and RJR Tobacco, and (2) the nature and extent of any such obligation. RJR and RJR Tobacco have conveyed their position to JTI, and the parties have agreed to resolve their differences at a later time.

European Community. On October 30, 2002, the European Community and ten of its member states filed a complaint in the EDNY against RJR, RJR Tobacco and several currently and formerly related companies. The complaint contains many of the same or similar allegations found in an earlier complaint, now dismissed, filed in August 2001 and also alleges that the defendants, together with certain identified and unidentified persons, engaged in money laundering and other conduct violating civil RICO and a variety of common laws. The complaint also alleges that the defendants manufactured cigarettes that were eventually sold in Iraq in violation of U.S. sanctions. The plaintiffs seek compensatory, punitive and treble damages among other types of relief. This matter had been stayed and largely inactive until November 24, 2009, when, with the court’s permission, the European Community and member states filed and served a second amended complaint. The second amended complaint added 16 member states as plaintiffs and RAI, RJR Tobacco and R. J. Reynolds Global Products Inc., referred to as GPI, as defendants. The allegations contained in the second amended complaint are in most respects either identical or similar to those found in the prior complaint, but now add new allegations primarily regarding the activities of RAI, RJR Tobacco and GPI following the B&W business combination. Pursuant to a stipulation and order, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ second amended complaint on February 15, 2010. Ruling on part of the defendants’ motion to dismiss, on March 8, 2011, the court dismissed the plaintiffs’ RICO claims, and reserved decision as to dismissal of the plaintiffs’ state-law claims. Thereafter, on May 13, 2011, the court granted the remaining portion of the defendants’ motion and dismissed the plaintiffs’ state-law claims based on the court’s lack of subject matter jurisdiction. On May 16, 2011, the clerk of court entered a judgment dismissing the action in its entirety. On June 10, 2011, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, appealing from the May 16, 2011, judgment, as well as the March 8, 2011, and May 13, 2011, orders that respectively resulted in the dismissal of their RICO and state-law claims. Oral argument occurred on February 24, 2012. A decision is pending.

FDA Litigation. On February 25, 2011, RJR Tobacco, Lorillard, Inc., and Lorillard Tobacco Company jointly filed a lawsuit, Lorillard, Inc. v. U.S. Food and Drug Administration, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, challenging the composition of TPSAC which had been established by the FDA under the FDA Tobacco Act. The complaint alleges that certain members of the TPSAC and certain members of its Constituents Subcommittee have financial and appearance conflicts of interest that are disqualifying under federal ethics law and regulations, and that the TPSAC is not “fairly balanced,” as required by the Federal Advisory Committee Act, referred to as FACA. In March 2011, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, which added an additional claim, based on a nonpublic meeting of members of the TPSAC, in violation of the FACA. The court granted the plaintiffs’ unopposed motion to file a second amended complaint adding a count addressing the FDA’s refusal to produce all documents generated by the TPSAC and its subcommittee in preparation of the menthol report. On August 1, 2012, the court denied the FDA’s motion to dismiss. The FDA filed its answer to the complaint on October 12, 2012. The parties participated in a status conference on April 22, 2013, with Lorillard and RJR Tobacco filing an amended complaint the same day. Briefing for summary judgment motions was completed on September 20, 2013. A decision is pending.

For a detailed description of the FDA Tobacco Act, see “— Governmental Activity” in “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations,” in Part I, Item 2.

Other Matters. RJR Tobacco and others brought suit against the City of Providence, Rhode Island challenging ordinances that prohibit the acceptance of tobacco product coupons, offering of certain pricing discounts for tobacco products, and certain flavored tobacco products in Providence, Rhode Island. The case, National Association of Tobacco Outlets, Inc. v. City of Providence, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island on February 13, 2012. The parties filed cross motions for summary judgment, and on December 11, 2012, the court granted judgment in favor of the defendants, except that the court modified the definition of a flavored tobacco product consistent with plaintiffs’ argument. On September 30, 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court.

In Richard Villarreal v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., a case filed June 6, 2012, the plaintiff filed a collective action complaint against R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., Pinstripe, Inc., and CareerBuilder, LLC, in the U.S. District Court, Northern District of Georgia. The complaint alleges unlawful discrimination with respect to the hiring of individuals to fill entry-level regional sales positions in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (29 U.S.C. §621, et seq.). Although the complaint is currently a single plaintiff case, the complaint seeks collective/class action status. RJR Tobacco’s and Pinstripe’s motion for partial dismissal was granted on March 6, 2013, thereby eliminating the plaintiff’s disparate impact claim and limiting the relevant time period for both the plaintiff’s claims and potential class claims. RJR Tobacco and Pinstripe filed answers to the remaining disparate treatment claim on March 20, 2013. Defendant CareerBuilder was dismissed with prejudice on September 25, 2012. The plaintiff filed a motion to amend the complaint on March 28, 2013, which was denied by the court on November 26, 2013. Discovery is currently proceeding. The plaintiff’s Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b) motion to certify for immediate appeal trial court’s prior dismissal of plaintiff’s disparate impact and time-barred claims is pending.

Smokeless Tobacco Litigation

As of December 31, 2013, American Snuff Co. was a defendant in six actions brought by individual plaintiffs in West Virginia state court seeking damages in connection with personal injuries allegedly sustained as a result of the usage of American Snuff Co.’s smokeless tobacco products. These actions are pending before the same West Virginia court as the 564 consolidated individual smoker cases against RJR Tobacco, B&W, as RJR Tobacco’s indemnitee, or both. Pursuant to the court’s December 3, 2001, order, the smokeless tobacco claims and defendants remain severed.

Pursuant to a second amended complaint filed in September 2006, American Snuff Co. is a defendant in Vassallo v. United States Tobacco Company, pending in the Eleventh Circuit Court in Miami-Dade County, Florida. The individual plaintiff alleges that he sustained personal injuries, including addiction and cancer, as a result of his use of smokeless tobacco products, allegedly including products manufactured by American Snuff Co. The plaintiff seeks unspecified compensatory and consequential damages in an amount greater than $15,000. There is no punitive damages demand in this case, though the plaintiff retains the right to seek leave of court to add such a demand later. Discovery is underway.

Tobacco Buyout Legislation

In 2004, legislation was passed eliminating the U.S. Government’s tobacco production controls and price support program. The buyout of tobacco quota holders provided for in the Fair and Equitable Tobacco Reform Act, referred to as FETRA, is funded by a direct quarterly assessment on every tobacco product manufacturer and importer, on a market-share basis measured on volume to which federal excise tax is applied. The aggregate cost of the buyout to the industry is approximately $9.9 billion, including approximately $9.6 billion payable to quota tobacco holders and growers through industry assessments over ten years, into 2014, and approximately $290 million for the liquidation of quota tobacco stock. RAI’s operating subsidiaries’ annual expense under FETRA for 2014 is estimated to be approximately $165 million.

RAI’s operating subsidiaries recorded the FETRA assessment on a quarterly basis as cost of goods sold. RAI’s operating subsidiaries estimate that their overall share of the buyout will approximate $2.5 billion prior to the deduction of permitted offsets under the MSA.

ERISA Litigation

In May 2002, in Tatum v. The R.J.R. Pension Investment Committee of the R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company Capital Investment Plan, an employee of RJR Tobacco filed a class-action suit in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, alleging that the defendants, RJR, RJR Tobacco, the RJR Employee Benefits Committee and the RJR Pension Investment Committee, violated the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, referred to as ERISA. The actions about which the plaintiff complains stem from a decision made in 1999 by RJR Nabisco Holdings Corp., subsequently renamed Nabisco Group Holdings Corp., referred to as NGH, to spin off RJR, thereby separating NGH’s tobacco business and food business. As part of the spin-off, the 401(k) plan for the previously related entities had to be divided into two separate plans for the now separate tobacco and food businesses. The plaintiff contends that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties to participants of the RJR 401(k) plan when the defendants removed the stock funds of the companies involved in the food business, NGH and Nabisco Holdings Corp., referred to as Nabisco, as investment options from the RJR 401(k) plan approximately six months after the spin-off. The plaintiff asserts that a November 1999 amendment (the “1999 Amendment”) that eliminated the NGH and Nabisco funds from the RJR 401(k) plan on January 31, 2000, contained sufficient discretion for the defendants to have retained the NGH and Nabisco funds after January 31, 2000, and that the failure to exercise such discretion was a breach of fiduciary duty. In his complaint, the plaintiff requests, among other things, that the court require the defendants to pay as damages to the RJR 401(k) plan an amount equal to the subsequent appreciation that was purportedly lost as a result of the liquidation of the NGH and Nabisco funds.

In July 2002, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss, which the court granted in December 2003. In December 2004, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reversed the dismissal of the complaint, holding that the 1999 Amendment did contain sufficient discretion for the defendants to have retained the NGH and Nabisco funds as of February 1, 2000, and remanded the case for further proceedings. The court granted the plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint and denied all pending motions as moot. In April 2007, the defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint. The court granted the motion in part and denied it in part, dismissing all claims against the RJR Employee Benefits Committee and the RJR Pension Investment Committee. The remaining defendants, RJR and RJR Tobacco, filed their answer and affirmative defenses in June 2007. The plaintiff filed a motion for class certification, which the court granted in September 2008. The district court ordered mediation, but no resolution of the case was reached. In September 2008, each of the plaintiffs and the defendants filed motions for summary judgment, and in January 2009, the defendants filed a motion to decertify the class. A second mediation occurred in June 2009, but again no resolution of the case was reached. The district court overruled the motions for summary judgment and the motion to decertify the class.

A non-jury trial was held in January and February 2010. During closing arguments, the plaintiff argued for the first time that certain facts arising at trial showed that the 1999 Amendment was not validly adopted, and then moved to amend his complaint to conform to this evidence at trial. On June 1, 2011, the court granted the plaintiff’s motion to amend his complaint and found that the 1999 Amendment was invalid.

The parties filed their findings of fact and conclusions of law on February 4, 2011. On February 25, 2013, the district court dismissed the case with prejudice. On March 8, 2013, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal. Oral argument has been scheduled for March 18, 2014.

Environmental Matters

RAI and its subsidiaries are subject to federal, state and local environmental laws and regulations concerning the discharge, storage, handling and disposal of hazardous or toxic substances. Such laws and regulations provide for significant fines, penalties and liabilities, sometimes without regard to whether the owner or operator of the property knew of, or was responsible for, the release or presence of hazardous or toxic substances. In addition, third parties may make claims against owners or operators of properties for personal injuries and property damage associated with releases of hazardous or toxic substances. In the past, RJR Tobacco has been named a potentially responsible party with third parties under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act with respect to several superfund sites. RAI and its subsidiaries are not aware of any current environmental matters that are expected to have a material adverse effect on the business, results of operations or financial position of RAI or its subsidiaries.

RAI and its operating subsidiaries believe that climate change is an environmental issue primarily driven by carbon dioxide emissions from the use of energy. RAI’s operating subsidiaries are working to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by minimizing the use of energy where cost effective, minimizing waste to landfills and increasing recycling. Climate change is not viewed by RAI’s operating subsidiaries as a significant direct economic risk to their businesses, but rather an indirect risk involving the potential for a longer-term general increase in the cost of doing business. Regulatory changes are difficult to predict, but the current regulatory risks to the business of RAI’s operating subsidiaries with respect to climate change are relatively low. Financial impacts will be driven more by the cost of natural gas and electricity. Efforts are made to mitigate the effect of increases in fuel costs directly impacting RAI’s operating subsidiaries by evaluating natural gas usage and market conditions, and occasionally purchasing forward contracts, limited to a three-year period, for natural gas. In addition, RAI’s operating subsidiaries are constantly evaluating electrical energy conservation measures and energy efficient equipment to mitigate impacts of increases in electrical energy costs.

Regulations promulgated by the EPA and other governmental agencies under various statutes have resulted in, and likely will continue to result in, substantial expenditures for pollution control, waste treatment, facility modification and similar activities. RAI and its subsidiaries are engaged in a continuing program to comply with federal, state and local environmental laws and regulations, and dependent upon the probability of occurrence and reasonable estimation of cost, accrue or disclose any material liability.

Although it is difficult to reasonably estimate the portion of capital expenditures or other costs attributable to compliance with environmental laws and regulations, RAI does not expect such expenditures or other costs to have a material adverse effect on the business, results of operations, cash flows or financial position of RAI or its subsidiaries.

Other Contingencies

In connection with the sale of the international tobacco business to JTI, pursuant to the 1999 Purchase Agreement, RJR and RJR Tobacco agreed to indemnify JTI against:

•

any liabilities, costs and expenses arising out of the imposition or assessment of any tax with respect to the international tobacco business arising prior to the sale, other than as reflected on the closing balance sheet;

•

any liabilities, costs and expenses that JTI or any of its affiliates, including the acquired entities, may incur after the sale with respect to any of RJR’s or RJR Tobacco’s employee benefit and welfare plans; and

•

any liabilities, costs and expenses incurred by JTI or any of its affiliates arising out of certain activities of Northern Brands.

As described above in “— Litigation Affecting the Cigarette Industry — Other Litigation and Developments — JTI Claims for Indemnification,” RJR Tobacco has received claims for indemnification from JTI, and several of these have been resolved. Although RJR and RJR Tobacco recognize that, under certain circumstances, they may have other unresolved indemnification obligations to JTI under the 1999 Purchase Agreement, RJR and RJR Tobacco disagree what circumstances described in such claims give rise to any indemnification obligations by RJR and RJR Tobacco and the nature and extent of any such obligation. RJR and RJR Tobacco have conveyed their position to JTI, and the parties have agreed to resolve their differences at a later date.

RJR Tobacco, SFNTC and American Snuff Co. have entered into agreements to indemnify certain distributors and retailers from liability and related defense costs arising out of the sale or distribution of their products. Additionally, SFNTC has entered into an agreement to indemnify a supplier from liability and related defense costs arising out of the sale or use of SFNTC’s products. The cost has been, and is expected to be, insignificant. RJR Tobacco, SFNTC and American Snuff Co. believe that the indemnified claims are substantially similar in nature and extent to the claims that they are already exposed to by virtue of their having manufactured those products.

Except as otherwise noted above, RAI is not able to estimate the maximum potential amount of future payments, if any, related to these indemnification obligations.

Lease Commitments

RAI has operating lease agreements that are primarily for office space, automobiles, warehouse space and computer equipment. The majority of these leases expire within the next five years and some contain renewal or purchase options and escalation clauses or restrictions relating to subleases. Total rent expense was $24 million, $19 million and $18 million for 2013, 2012 and 2011, respectively.

Future minimum lease payments as of December 31, 2013 were as follows:


	Noncancellable Operating Leases
2014	$	22
2015		17
2016		14
2017		9
2018		5
Thereafter		1

Total	$	68

REYNOLDS AMERICAN INC | 2013 | FY |

us-gaap:CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureTextBlock