e10vk
UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE
COMMISSION
Washington, D.C.
20549
FORM 10-K
(Mark
One)
þ ANNUAL
REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF
THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
For the fiscal year ended December 31,
2009
OR
o TRANSITION
REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF
THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
Commission file
number: 1-32258
Reynolds American
Inc.
(Exact name of registrant as
specified in its charter)
|
|
|
North Carolina
(State or other jurisdiction of
incorporation or organization)
|
|
20-0546644
(I.R.S. Employer Identification
Number)
|
401 North Main Street
Winston-Salem, NC 27101
(Address of principal executive
offices) (Zip Code)
(336) 741-2000
(Registrants telephone
number, including area code)
Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the
Act:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Name of each
|
|
|
|
Name of each
|
|
|
exchange on which
|
|
|
|
exchange on which
|
Title of each class
|
|
registered
|
|
Title of each class
|
|
registered
|
|
Common stock, par value $.0001 per share
|
|
New York
|
|
Rights to Purchase Series A Junior
|
|
New York
|
|
|
|
|
Participating Preferred Stock
|
|
|
Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the
Act: None
Indicate by check mark if the registrant is a well-known
seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Exchange
Act. Yes þ No o
Indicate by check mark if the registrant is not required to file
reports pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the
Act. Yes o No þ
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed
all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding
12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant
was required to file such reports), and (2) has been
subject to such filing requirements for the past
90 days. Yes þ No o
Indicate by check mark if disclosure of delinquent filers
pursuant to Item 405 of
Regulation S-K
is not contained herein, and will not be contained, to the best
of registrants knowledge, in definitive proxy or
information statements incorporated by reference in
Part III of this
Form 10-K
or any amendment to this
Form 10-K. o
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has submitted
electronically and posted on its corporate Web site, if any,
every Interactive File required to be submitted and posted
pursuant to Rule 405 of
Regulation S-T
during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period
that the registrant was required to submit and post such
files). Yes þ No o
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large
accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated
filer, or a smaller reporting company. See the definitions of
large accelerated filer, accelerated
filer and smaller reporting company in
Rule 12b-2
of the Exchange Act. (Check one):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Large
accelerated filer þ
|
|
Accelerated filer o
|
|
Non-accelerated filer o
|
|
Smaller reporting company o
|
|
|
(Do not check if a smaller reporting company)
|
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company
(as defined in
Rule 12b-2
of the Exchange
Act). Yes o No þ
The aggregate market value of common stock held by
non-affiliates of Reynolds American Inc. on June 30, 2009,
was approximately $6.5 billion, based on the closing price
of $38.62. Directors, executive officers and a significant
shareholder of Reynolds American Inc. are considered affiliates
for purposes of this calculation, but should not necessarily be
deemed affiliates for any other purpose.
Indicate the number of shares outstanding of each of the
registrants classes of common stock, as of the latest
practicable date: January 29, 2010: 291,441,336 shares
of common stock, par value $.0001 per share.
Documents
Incorporated by Reference:
Portions of the Definitive Proxy Statement of Reynolds American
Inc. to be filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
pursuant to Regulation 14A of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 on or about March 22, 2010, are incorporated by
reference into Part III of this report.
PART I
Reynolds American Inc., referred to as RAI, is a holding company
whose operating subsidiaries include the second largest
cigarette manufacturer in the United States, R. J. Reynolds
Tobacco Company, and the second largest smokeless tobacco
products manufacturer in the United States, American Snuff
Company, LLC, which prior to January 1, 2010, was known as
Conwood Company, LLC. RAI was incorporated in the state of North
Carolina on January 5, 2004, and its common stock is listed
on the NYSE under the symbol RAI. RAIs
headquarters are located in Winston-Salem, North Carolina. On
July 30, 2004, RAI combined the U.S. assets,
liabilities and operations of Brown & Williamson
Holdings, Inc., referred to as B&W, an indirect, wholly
owned subsidiary of British American Tobacco p.l.c., referred to
as BAT, with R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, a wholly owned
operating subsidiary of R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Holdings, Inc., a
wholly owned subsidiary of RAI, referred to as RJR. These
July 30, 2004, transactions generally are referred to as
the B&W business combination. As a result of the B&W
business combination, B&W owns approximately 42% of
RAIs outstanding common stock. Also, as a result of the
B&W business combination, Lane, Limited, referred to as
Lane, became a direct, wholly owned subsidiary of RAI.
References to RJR Tobacco prior to July 30, 2004, relate to
R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, a New Jersey corporation.
References to RJR Tobacco on and subsequent to July 30,
2004, relate to the combined U.S. assets, liabilities and
operations of B&W and R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company.
Concurrent with the completion of the B&W business
combination, RJR Tobacco became a North Carolina corporation.
In 2006, RAI, through Conwood Holdings, Inc., completed its
acquisition of a group of smokeless tobacco companies
collectively referred to as the Conwood companies, currently
only including American Snuff Company, LLC and Rosswil, LLC.
RAIs Internet Web site address is
www.reynoldsamerican.com. RAIs annual reports on
Form 10-K,
quarterly reports on
Form 10-Q,
current reports on
Form 8-K,
insider trading reports on Forms 3, 4 and 5 and all
amendments to those reports are available free of charge through
RAIs Web site, as soon as reasonably practicable after
such material is electronically filed with, or furnished to, the
SEC. RAIs Internet Web site and the information contained
therein or connected thereto are not intended to be incorporated
into this Annual Report on
Form 10-K.
Effective January 1, 2010, RAIs Web site is the
primary source of publicly disclosed news about RAI and its
operating companies.
RAIs reportable operating segments are RJR Tobacco and
Conwood. The RJR Tobacco segment consists of the primary
operations of R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company. The Conwood
segment consists of Conwood Holdings, Inc., the primary
operations of the Conwood companies and Lane. Two of RAIs
wholly owned subsidiaries, Santa Fe Natural Tobacco
Company, Inc., referred to as Santa Fe, and Niconovum AB,
among others, are included in All Other. The segments were
identified based on how RAIs chief operating decision
maker allocates resources and assesses performance. RAIs
wholly owned operating subsidiaries have entered into
intercompany agreements for products or services with other RAI
operating subsidiaries. As a result, certain activities of an
operating subsidiary may be included in a different segment of
RAI. For net sales, operating income and total assets
attributable to each segment, see Item 8, note 18 to
consolidated financial statements.
Changes
Impacting the Tobacco Industry
On February 4, 2009, President Obama signed into law,
effective April 1, 2009, an increase of $0.62 in the excise
tax per pack of cigarettes, and significant tax increases on
other tobacco products, to fund expansion of the State
Childrens Health Insurance Program, referred to as the
SCHIP. As a result, the federal excise tax rate for snuff
increased $0.925 per pound to $1.51 per pound. The federal
excise tax on small cigars, defined as those weighing three
pounds or less per thousand, increased $48.502 per thousand to
$50.33 per thousand. In addition, the federal excise tax rate
for roll-your-own tobacco increased from $1.097 per pound to
$24.78 per pound. RAIs operating subsidiaries believe that
these federal excise tax increases have had, and will continue
to have, a significant and adverse impact on sales volume.
3
On June 22, 2009, President Obama signed into law the
Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act, referred to
as the FDA Tobacco Act. Under the FDA Tobacco Act, the
U.S. Food and Drug Administration, referred to as the FDA,
has been granted broad authority over the manufacture, sale,
marketing and packaging of tobacco products. It is likely that
the FDA Tobacco Act could result in a decrease in cigarette and
smokeless tobacco sales in the United States, including sales of
RJR Tobaccos and Conwoods brands, and an increase in
costs to RJR Tobacco and Conwood that could have a material
adverse effect on RAIs financial condition, results of
operations and cash flows. For a detailed description of the FDA
Tobacco Act, see Governmental Activity
in Managements Discussion and Analysis of Financial
Condition and Results of Operations in Item 7.
RAI
Strategy
RAIs strategy is focused on anticipating shifts in
consumer preferences by becoming an innovative total tobacco
company. RAI also is focused on delivering sustainable earnings
growth, strong cash flow and enhanced long-term shareholder
value through growth strategies for its operating companies.
These strategies include growth in base brands of RJR
Tobaccos cigarette business, growth and innovation in
smokeless tobacco products, super-premium cigarette brand
growth, opportunistic international expansion and selective
portfolio enhancements. RAI remains committed to maintaining
high standards of corporate governance and business conduct in a
high performing culture.
RJR
Tobacco
Overview
RAIs largest reportable operating segment, RJR Tobacco, is
the second largest cigarette manufacturer in the United States.
RJR Tobaccos largest selling cigarette brands, CAMEL, PALL
MALL, WINSTON, KOOL and DORAL, were five of the ten best-selling
brands of cigarettes in the United States as of
December 31, 2009. Those brands, and its other brands,
including SALEM, MISTY and CAPRI, are manufactured in a variety
of styles and marketed in the United States. RJR Tobacco also
manages contract manufacturing of cigarette and tobacco products
through arrangements with BAT affiliates. On January 1,
2009, the management of tobacco products sold to certain
U.S. territories, U.S. duty-free shops and
U.S. overseas military bases was transferred to RJR Tobacco
from R. J. Reynolds Global Products, Inc., referred to as GPI.
RJR Tobacco primarily conducts its business in the highly
competitive U.S. cigarette market. The international rights
to substantially all of RJR Tobaccos brands were sold in
1999 to Japan Tobacco Inc., referred to as JTI and no
international rights were acquired in connection with the
B&W business combination. The U.S. cigarette market,
which has a few large manufacturers and many smaller
participants, is a mature market in which overall consumer
demand has declined since 1981 and is expected to continue to
decline. Management Science Associates, Inc., referred to as
MSAi, reported that U.S. cigarette shipments declined 8.6%
in 2009, to 315.7 billion cigarettes, 3.3% in 2008 and 5.0%
in 2007. From year to year, shipments are impacted by various
factors including price increases, excise tax increases and
wholesale inventory adjustments.
Profitability of the U.S. cigarette industry and RJR
Tobacco continues to be adversely impacted by the decreases in
consumption, increases in federal and state excise taxes and
governmental regulations and restrictions, such as marketing
limitations, product standards and smoking bans.
Expanding beyond the cigarette market as an innovative tobacco
company, RJR Tobacco offers two types of smoke-free tobacco,
CAMEL Snus and CAMEL Dissolvables. CAMEL Snus, launched
nationally in 2009, is pasteurized tobacco in a small pouch that
provides convenient tobacco consumption. CAMEL Dissolvables
include CAMEL Orbs, Sticks and Strips, all of which are made of
finely milled tobacco and dissolve completely in the mouth.
CAMEL Orbs were launched in three lead markets during the first
quarter of 2009, and CAMEL Sticks and Strips were launched in
those lead markets during the third quarter of 2009.
Competition
RJR Tobaccos primary competitors include Philip Morris USA
Inc., Lorillard Tobacco Company, Liggett Group and Commonwealth
Brands, Inc., as well as manufacturers of deep-discount brands.
Deep-discount brands are brands manufactured by companies that
are not original participants in the Master Settlement
Agreement,
4
referred to as MSA, and other state settlement agreements with
the states of Mississippi, Florida, Texas and Minnesota,
together with the MSA collectively referred to as the State
Settlement Agreements, and accordingly, do not have cost
structures burdened with State Settlement Agreements-related
payments to the same extent as the original participating
manufacturers. For further discussion of the State Settlement
Agreements, see Litigation Affecting the
Cigarette Industry Health-Care Cost Recovery
Cases State Settlement Agreements in
Item 8, note 14 to consolidated financial statements.
Based on data collected by Information Resources Inc., referred
to as IRI/Capstone, using a revised sampling model implemented
in 2009 to better reflect the current retail environment, during
2009 and 2008, RJR Tobacco had an overall retail share of the
U.S. cigarette market of 28.3% and 28.4%, respectively.
During these same years, Philip Morris USA Inc. had an overall
retail share of the U.S. cigarette market of 49.7% and
50.9%, respectively.
Domestic shipment volume and retail share of market data that
appear in this document have been obtained from MSAi and
IRI/Capstone, respectively. These two organizations are the
primary sources of volume and market share data relating to the
cigarette and tobacco industry. This information is included in
this document because it is used by RJR Tobacco primarily as an
indicator of the relative performance of industry participants.
However, you should not rely on the market share data reported
by IRI/Capstone as being precise measurements of actual market
share because IRI/Capstone uses a sample and projection
methodology that is not able to effectively track all volume.
Moreover, you should be aware that in a product market
experiencing overall declining consumption, a particular product
can experience increasing market share relative to competing
products, yet still be subject to declining consumption volumes.
RJR Tobacco believes that deep-discount brands made by small
manufacturers have combined shipments of approximately 16% of
total U.S. industry shipments. Accordingly, the retail
share of market of RJR Tobacco and its brands as reported by
IRI/Capstone may overstate their actual market share.
Competition is based primarily on brand positioning, including
price, product attributes and packaging, consumer loyalty,
promotions, advertising and retail presence. Cigarette brands
produced by the major manufacturers generally require
competitive pricing, substantial marketing support, retail
programs and other incentives to maintain or improve market
position or to introduce a new brand or brand style. Competition
among the major cigarette manufacturers has begun shifting to
product innovation and expansion into smoke-free tobacco
categories, such as moist snuff and snus, as well as finding
efficient and effective means of balancing market share and
profit growth.
Marketing
RJR Tobacco is committed to building and maintaining a portfolio
of profitable brands. RJR Tobaccos marketing programs are
designed to strengthen brand image, build brand awareness and
loyalty, and switch adult smokers of competing brands to RJR
Tobacco brands. In addition to building strong brand equity, RJR
Tobaccos marketing approach utilizes a retail pricing
strategy, including discounting at retail, to defend certain
brands shares of market against competitive pricing
pressure. RJR Tobaccos competitive pricing methods may
include list price changes, discounting programs, such as retail
and wholesale buydowns, periodic price reductions, off-invoice
price reductions, dollar-off promotions, free product promotions
and consumer coupons. Retail buydowns refer to payments made to
the retailer to reduce the price that consumers pay at retail.
Consumer coupons generally are distributed by a variety of
methods including in, or on, the cigarette pack and by direct
mail.
RJR Tobacco provides trade incentives through trade terms,
wholesale partner programs and retail incentives. Trade
discounts are provided to wholesalers based on compliance with
certain terms. The wholesale partner programs provide incentives
to RJR Tobaccos direct buying customers based on
performance levels. Retail incentives are paid to the retailer
based on compliance with RJR Tobaccos contract terms.
RJR Tobaccos cigarette brand portfolio strategy is based
upon three brand categories: growth, support and non-support.
The growth brands consist of a premium brand, CAMEL, and a value
brand, PALL MALL. Although both of these brands are managed for
long-term market share and profit growth, CAMEL will continue to
receive the most significant investment support. The support
brands include four premium brands, WINSTON, KOOL, SALEM and
CAPRI, and two value brands, DORAL and MISTY, all of which
receive limited marketing support. The non-support brands,
consisting of all other brands, are managed to maximize
near-term profitability. The key objectives of the portfolio
strategy are designed to focus on the long-term market share
growth of the growth brands
5
while managing the support brands for long-term sustainability
and profitability. At present, RJR Tobaccos smoke-free
products are marketed under the CAMEL brand and focus on
long-term growth.
Anti-tobacco groups have attempted to restrict cigarette sales,
cigarette advertising, and the testing and introduction of new
tobacco products as well as encourage smoking bans. The MSA and
federal, state and local laws and regulations restrict or
prohibit utilization of television, radio or billboard
advertising or certain other marketing and promotional tools for
cigarettes and smoke-free tobacco products. RJR Tobacco
continues to use direct mailings and other means to market its
brands and enhance their appeal among age-verified adults who
use tobacco products. RJR Tobacco continues to advertise and
promote at retail locations and in adult venues where permitted
and also uses print advertising in newspapers and consumer
magazines in the U.S.
Manufacturing
and Distribution
RJR Tobacco owns its cigarette manufacturing facilities, located
in the Winston-Salem, North Carolina area, known as the
Tobaccoville manufacturing facility and the Whitaker Park
complex. The Whitaker Park complex includes a manufacturing
facility, a research and development facility, RJR
Tobaccos Central Distribution Center and a pilot plant for
trial manufacturing of new products. RJR Tobacco has a total
production capacity of approximately 160 billion cigarettes
per year. RJR Tobacco continues to evaluate capacity
rationalization, which may result in the consolidation or
closure of some facilities.
RJR Tobacco sells its cigarettes primarily through distributors,
wholesalers and other direct customers, some of which are retail
chains. RJR Tobacco distributes its cigarettes primarily to
public warehouses located throughout the United States that
serve as local distribution centers to its customers. No
significant backlog of orders existed at December 31, 2009
or 2008.
RJR Tobacco has entered into various transactions with
affiliates of BAT. RJR Tobacco sells contract-manufactured
cigarettes and processed strip leaf to BAT affiliates. Net
sales, primarily of cigarettes, to BAT affiliates represented
approximately 5.0% of RAIs total net sales in each of 2009
and 2008 and approximately 6.0% in 2007.
Raw
Materials
In its production of tobacco products, RJR Tobacco uses
U.S. and foreign, grown primarily in Brazil and Malawi,
burley and flue-cured leaf tobaccos, as well as Oriental
tobaccos grown primarily in Turkey, Macedonia and Bulgaria. RJR
Tobacco believes there is a sufficient supply of leaf in the
worldwide tobacco market to satisfy its current and anticipated
production requirements.
RJR Tobacco purchases the majority of its U.S. flue-cured
and burley leaf directly through contracts with tobacco growers.
These short-term contracts are frequently renegotiated. RJR
Tobacco believes the relationship with its leaf suppliers is
good.
Under the modified terms of settlement agreements with
flue-cured and burley tobacco growers, and quota holders, RJR
Tobacco is required, among other things, to purchase a minimum
amount, in pounds and subject to adjustment based on its annual
total requirements, annually of U.S. green leaf flue-cured
and burley tobacco combined, through the 2015 crop year.
RJR Tobacco also uses other raw materials such as filter tow,
filter rods and fire standards compliant paper, which are
sourced from either one supplier or a few suppliers. RJR Tobacco
believes it has reasonable measures in place designed to
mitigate the risk posed by the limited number of suppliers of
certain raw materials.
Conwood
Overview
RAIs other reportable operating segment, Conwood, is the
second largest smokeless tobacco products manufacturer in the
United States. Conwoods primary products include its
largest selling moist snuff brands, GRIZZLY, the best-selling
brand of moist snuff in the United States as of
December 31, 2009, and KODIAK. The
6
moist snuff category is divided into premium and price-value
brands. Conwood offers KODIAK in the premium brand category and
GRIZZLY in the price-value brand category.
In contrast to the declining U.S. cigarette market, MSAi
reported U.S. moist snuff volumes grew over 4% in 2009,
driven by the accelerated growth of price-value brands. Profit
margins on moist snuff products are generally higher than on
cigarette products. Moist snuffs growth is partially
attributable to cigarette smokers switching from cigarettes to
smokeless tobacco products or using both. Within the moist snuff
category, premium brands have lost market share to price-value
brands, led by the growth of GRIZZLY, in recent years. However,
during 2009, heavy promotion and competitive pricing of premium
brands has slowed the growth of the price-value brands.
Leveraging RAIs total tobacco business model, Conwood
launched CAMEL Dip, a premium moist snuff, in lead markets
during the second quarter of 2009. CAMEL Dip will be launched in
additional markets in 2010.
Moist snuff has been the key driver of Conwoods overall
growth and profitability within the U.S. smokeless tobacco
market. Moist snuff accounted for approximately 71%, 66% and 60%
of Conwoods revenue in 2009, 2008 and 2007, respectively.
Conwoods U.S. moist snuff market share was 29.4%,
27.6% and 26.0% in 2009, 2008 and 2007, respectively, based on
distributor-reported data processed by MSAi for distributor
shipments to retail. Although moist snuff volume grew over 4% in
2009, Conwoods moist snuff volume grew over 6% in 2009,
attributable to its innovation, product development and brand
building. GRIZZLY brand moist snuff had a market share of 25.3%,
23.2% and 21.1% in 2009, 2008 and 2007, respectively.
Conwood also distributes a variety of other tobacco products,
including WINCHESTER and CAPTAIN BLACK little cigars, and BUGLER
roll-your-own tobacco. The operations of Lane are included in
the Conwood segment.
Competition
Conwood is dependent on the U.S. smokeless tobacco market,
where competition is significant. Similar to the cigarette
market, competition is based primarily on brand positioning and
price, as well as product attributes and packaging, consumer
loyalty, promotions, advertising and retail presence. Moist
snuff has developed many of the characteristics of the larger,
cigarette market, including multiple pricing tiers with intense
competition, focused marketing programs and product innovation.
Conwoods largest competitor is U.S. Smokeless Tobacco
Company LLC, referred to as USSTC, which had approximately
55.1%, 58.1% and 60.6% of the U.S. moist snuff market share
in 2009, 2008 and 2007, respectively. The parent company of RJR
Tobaccos largest competitor in the cigarette market,
Philip Morris USA Inc., completed its acquisition of USSTC in
January 2009. Conwood also competes in the U.S. smokeless
tobacco market with other domestic and international companies.
Marketing
Conwoods brand portfolio strategy consists of investment
brands, KODIAK and GRIZZLY, and selective and non-support brands
that include all other brands. Among Conwoods newest
offerings are GRIZZLY mint, straight and snuff pouches. GRIZZLY
pouches provide pre-measured portions that are more convenient
than traditional, loose moist snuff. Pouches represented
approximately 8% of the total U.S. moist snuff market as of
December 31, 2009, and demand continues to grow. Conwood
also launched CAMEL Dip in Wintergreen Wide Cut and Dark Milled
styles in lead markets during 2009. GRIZZLY 1900 Long Cut, a
natural product with a traditional long cut, was introduced in
the first quarter of 2010. Continuing with innovation and brand
building, Conwood will feature embossed metal lids on KODIAK and
GRIZZLY brands in 2010.
Conwood is committed to being an innovative industry leader and
in the servicing of its customers needs, evidenced by the
creative packaging of smokeless products, including the
development of a plastic can.
Manufacturing
and Distribution
Conwoods primary manufacturing facilities are located in
Memphis, Tennessee; Clarksville, Tennessee; and Winston-Salem,
North Carolina. Other facilities are located in Tucker, Georgia;
Bowling Green, Kentucky; and
7
Springfield, Tennessee. Conwood owns all of its facilities.
During 2009, Conwood began capacity upgrade and expansion
projects at newly acquired sites in Memphis, Tennessee and
Clarksville, Tennessee. The new Memphis facility will replace
the current Memphis facility with production expected to begin
in 2012, while the new Clarksville facility will provide for
capacity expansion with initial production beginning in 2010.
Both facilities will be FDA compliant. Conwood sells its
products primarily to distributors, wholesalers and other direct
customers, some of which are retail chains.
Raw
Materials
In its production of moist snuff, Conwood uses
U.S. fire-cured and air-cured tobaccos as well as foreign,
primarily Brazilian, burley and air-cured leaf tobaccos. Conwood
purchases the majority of its U.S. fire-cured and air-cured
leaf directly through contracts with tobacco growers. These
short-term contracts are frequently renegotiated. Conwood
believes the relationship with its leaf suppliers is good.
Conwood believes there is a sufficient supply of leaf in the
worldwide tobacco market to satisfy its current and anticipated
production requirements.
Consolidated
RAI
Santa Fe manufactures and markets cigarettes and other
tobacco products under the NATURAL AMERICAN SPIRIT brand, as
well as manages super premium brands licensed from BAT,
including DUNHILL and STATE EXPRESS 555.
In January 2009, the activities of GPI were transitioned to
other operating subsidiaries of RAI. The management and export
of tobacco products to certain U.S. territories,
U.S. duty-free shops and U.S. overseas military bases
was transferred to RJR Tobacco, and sales of NATURAL AMERICAN
SPIRIT in Europe and Japan were transferred to other indirect
subsidiaries of RAI.
Customers
The largest customer of RAIs operating companies is McLane
Company Inc. Sales to McLane, a distributor, comprised 27%, 29%
and 28% of RAIs consolidated revenue in 2009, 2008 and
2007, respectively. No other customer accounted for 10% or more
of RAIs consolidated revenue during those periods. RJR
Tobacco and Conwood each believe that its relationship with
McLane is good. Sales of RJR Tobacco and Conwood to McLane are
not governed by any written supply contract. No significant
backlog of orders existed at RJR Tobacco or Conwood as of
December 31, 2009 or 2008.
Sales to
Foreign Countries
RAIs operating subsidiaries sales to foreign
countries, primarily to BAT affiliates, for the years ended
December 31, 2009, 2008 and 2007 were $547 million,
$611 million and $616 million, respectively.
Raw
Materials
In 2004, legislation was passed eliminating the
U.S. governments tobacco production controls and
price support program. The buyout 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 tobacco industry is approximately $9.9 billion,
including approximately $9.6 billion payable to quota
tobacco holders and growers through industry assessments over
ten years and approximately $290 million for the
liquidation of quota tobacco stock. RAIs operating
subsidiaries estimate that their overall share will approximate
$2.3 billion to $2.8 billion prior to the deduction of
permitted offsets under the MSA.
Research
and Development
The primary research and development activities of RAIs
operating subsidiaries are conducted at RJR Tobaccos
Whitaker Park complex. Scientists and engineers at this facility
continue to explore and develop innovative products, packaging
and processes, as well as harm reduction technologies, potential
reduced exposure
8
products and analytical methodologies. A focus activity for
research and development going forward is to prepare for the FDA
regulatory compliance and adhere to future FDA guidelines and
approval processes.
RAIs operating subsidiaries research and development
expense for the years ended December 31, 2009, 2008 and
2007, was $68 million, $59 million and
$57 million, respectively. The increase in research and
development expense in 2009 compared with 2008 and 2007 was
attributable primarily to the development of harm reduction and
smoke-free products at RJR Tobacco.
Intellectual
Property
RAIs operating subsidiaries own or have the right to use
numerous trademarks, including the brand names of their tobacco
products and the distinctive elements of their packaging and
displays. RAIs operating subsidiaries material
trademarks are registered with the U.S. Patent and
Trademark Office. Rights in these trademarks in the United
States will last as long as RAIs subsidiaries continue to
use the trademarks. The operating subsidiaries consider the
distinctive blends and recipes used to make each of their brands
to be trade secrets. These trade secrets are not patented, but
RAIs operating subsidiaries take appropriate measures to
protect the unauthorized disclosure of such information.
In 1999, RJR Tobacco sold most of its trademarks and patents
outside the United States in connection with the sale of the
international tobacco business to JTI. The sale agreement
granted JTI the right to use certain of RJR Tobaccos trade
secrets outside the United States, but details of the
ingredients or formulas for flavors and the blends of tobacco
may not be provided to any
sub-licensees
or
sub-contractors.
The agreement also generally prohibits JTI and its licensees and
sub-licensees
from the sale or distribution of tobacco products of any
description employing the purchased trademarks and other
intellectual property rights in the United States. In 2005, the
U.S. duty-free and U.S. overseas military businesses
relating to certain brands were acquired from JTI. These rights
had been sold to JTI in 1999 as a part of the sale of RJR
Tobaccos international tobacco business.
In addition to intellectual property rights it directly owns,
RJR Tobacco has certain rights with respect to BAT intellectual
property that were available for use by B&W prior to the
completion of the B&W business combination.
On December 9, 2009, through an indirect subsidiary, RAI
acquired Niconovum AB. Substantially all of the value of the
acquired assets was determined to be a technology-based,
indefinite-lived other intangible asset. For additional
information on the acquisition of Niconovum AB, see Item 8,
note 3 to consolidated financial statements.
Legislation
and Other Matters Affecting the Tobacco Industry
The tobacco industry is subject to a wide range of laws and
regulations regarding the marketing, sale, taxation and use of
tobacco products imposed by local, state, federal and foreign
governments. Various state governments have adopted or are
considering, among other things, legislation and regulations
that would:
|
|
|
|
|
significantly increase their taxes on tobacco products;
|
|
|
|
restrict displays, advertising and sampling of tobacco products;
|
|
|
|
establish fire standards compliance for cigarettes;
|
|
|
|
raise the minimum age to possess or purchase tobacco products;
|
|
|
|
restrict or ban the use of certain flavorings, including
menthol, in tobacco products, or the use of certain flavor
descriptors in marketing of tobacco products;
|
|
|
|
require the disclosure of ingredients used in the manufacture of
tobacco products;
|
|
|
|
require the disclosure of nicotine yield information for
cigarettes;
|
|
|
|
impose restrictions on smoking in public and private
areas; and
|
|
|
|
restrict the sale of tobacco products directly to consumers or
other unlicensed recipients, including over the Internet.
|
9
In addition, during 2009, the U.S. Congress adopted
legislation increasing the federal excise tax on cigarettes and
other tobacco products, and granting the FDA broad authority
over the manufacture, sale, marketing and packaging of tobacco
products. During 2010, the U.S. Congress also may consider
legislation regarding:
|
|
|
|
|
regulation of environmental tobacco smoke;
|
|
|
|
implementation of a national fire standards compliance for
cigarettes;
|
|
|
|
regulation of the retail sale of tobacco products over the
Internet and in other non-face-to-face retail transactions, such
as by mail order and telephone; and
|
|
|
|
banning the delivery of tobacco products by the U.S. Postal
Service.
|
Together with manufacturers price increases in recent
years and substantial increases in state and federal taxes on
tobacco products, these developments have had and will likely
continue to have an adverse effect on the sale of tobacco
products. For further discussion of the regulatory and
legislative environment applicable to the tobacco industry, see
Item 7, Managements Discussion and Analysis of
Financial Condition and Results of Operations
Governmental Activity.
Litigation
and Settlements
Various legal proceedings or claims, including litigation
claiming that lung cancer and other diseases, as well as
addiction, have resulted from the use of, or exposure to,
RAIs operating subsidiaries products, and seeking
damages in amounts ranging into the hundreds of millions or even
billions of dollars, are pending or may be instituted against
RJR Tobacco, the Conwood companies or their affiliates,
including RAI or RJR, or indemnitees, including B&W. In
particular, in Engle v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., et
al., the Florida Supreme Court issued a ruling that, among
other things, determined that the case could not proceed further
as a class action. The ruling also permitted members of the
Engle class to file individual claims, including claims
for punitive damages, through January 11, 2008. RJR Tobacco
refers to these cases as the Engle Progeny Cases. RJR
Tobacco has been served as of January 29, 2010 in 7,711
cases on behalf of approximately 9,246 plaintiffs. The Engle
Progeny Cases have resulted and will continue to result in
increased litigation and trial activity and increased expenses.
For a more complete description of the Engle Progeny
cases, see Engle Progeny Cases in
Item 8, note 14 to consolidated financial statements.
Also, the consolidated action, In re: Tobacco Litigation
Individual Personal Injury Cases, is pending in West
Virginia, against both RJR Tobacco and B&W. The case
consists of over 600 plaintiffs and will be tried in a single
proceeding. Trial began February 1, 2010, but a mistrial
was declared February 3, 2010. A new trial is scheduled to
begin June 1, 2010. For a more complete description of this
case, see West Virginia IPIC in
Item 8, note 14 to consolidated financial statements.
RAIs management continues to conclude that the loss of any
particular 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 against
the Conwood companies, when viewed on an individual basis, is
not probable. RAI and its subsidiaries believe that they have
valid basis for appeal of adverse verdicts against them and have
valid defenses to all actions and intend to defend all actions
vigorously. Nonetheless, the possibility of material losses
related to tobacco litigation is more than remote. Litigation is
subject to many uncertainties, and generally it is not possible
to predict the outcome of the litigation pending against RJR
Tobacco, the Conwood companies or their affiliates or
indemnitees, or to reasonably estimate the amount or range of
any possible loss. Moreover, notwithstanding the quality of
defenses available to it and its affiliates in tobacco-related
litigation matters, it is possible that RAIs consolidated
results of operations, cash flows or financial position could be
materially adversely affected by the ultimate outcome of certain
pending or future litigation matters. For further discussion of
the litigation and legal proceedings pending against RAI or its
affiliates or indemnitees, see Item 8, note 14 to
consolidated financial statements.
In November 1998, RJR Tobacco, B&W and the other major
U.S. cigarette manufacturers entered into the MSA with
attorneys general representing most U.S. states,
territories and possessions. As described in Item 8,
note 14 to consolidated financial statements, the State
Settlement Agreements impose a perpetual stream of future
payment obligations on RJR Tobacco and the other major
U.S. cigarette manufacturers, and place significant
restrictions on their ability to market and sell tobacco
products in the future. For more information related to
10
historical and expected settlement expenses and payments under
the State Settlement Agreements, see
Litigation Affecting the Cigarette
Industry Health-Care Cost Recovery Cases
State Settlement Agreements in Item 8, note 14
to consolidated financial statements. The State Settlement
Agreements have materially adversely affected RJR Tobaccos
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.
RJR Tobacco and certain of the other participating manufacturers
under the MSA are currently involved in litigation with the
settling states with respect to the availability for certain
market years of a downward adjustment to the annual MSA
settlement payment obligation, known as the Non-Participating
Manufacturer Adjustment. RJR Tobacco has disputed a total of
$2.9 billion for the years 2003 through 2008. For more
information related to this litigation, see
Litigation Affecting the Cigarette
Industry Health-Care Cost Recovery Cases
State Settlement Agreements Enforcement and
Validity in Item 8, note 14 to consolidated
financial statements.
Employees
At December 31, 2009, RAI and its subsidiaries had
approximately 6,400 full-time employees and approximately
150 part-time employees. The 6,400 full-time employees
include approximately 4,500 RJR Tobacco employees and 1,000
Conwood employees. No employees of RAI or its subsidiaries are
unionized.
RAI and its subsidiaries operate with certain known risks and
uncertainties that could have a material adverse effect on their
results of operations, cash flows and financial position. The
risks below are not the only ones RAI and its subsidiaries face.
Additional risks not currently known or currently considered
immaterial also could affect RAIs business. You should
carefully consider the following risk factors in connection with
other information included in this Annual Report on
Form 10-K.
RAIs operating subsidiaries could be subject to
substantial liabilities and bonding difficulties from litigation
related to cigarette products or smokeless tobacco products,
thereby reducing operating margins and cash flows from
operations. Adverse litigation outcomes could have a negative
impact on RAIs ability to continue to operate due to their
impact on cash flows.
RJR Tobacco, the Conwood companies and their affiliates,
including RAI, and indemnitees, including B&W, have been
named in a large number of tobacco-related legal actions,
proceedings or claims. The claimants seek recovery on a variety
of legal theories, including negligence, strict liability in
tort, design defect, fraud, misrepresentation, unfair trade
practices and violations of state and federal antitrust laws.
Various forms of relief are sought, including compensatory and,
where available, punitive damages in amounts ranging in some
cases into the hundreds of millions or even billions of dollars.
The tobacco-related legal actions range from individual lawsuits
to
class-actions
and other aggregate claim lawsuits. In particular,
class-action
suits have been filed in a number of states against individual
cigarette manufacturers, including RJR Tobacco, and their
parents, including RAI, alleging that the use of the terms
lights and ultra lights constitutes
unfair and deceptive trade practices. In December 2008, the
U.S. Supreme Court ruled that neither the Federal Cigarette
Labeling and Advertising Act nor the Federal Trade
Commissions regulation of tar and nicotine
disclosures preempts (or bars) such claims. This ruling limits
certain defenses available to RJR Tobacco and other cigarette
manufacturers and has led to the filing of additional lawsuits.
In the event RJR Tobacco and its affiliates and 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 obtaining the bond required
to stay execution of the judgment. For a more complete
description of these cases, see
Class-Action
Suits Lights Cases in Item 8,
note 14 to consolidated financial statements.
In Engle v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., et al., the
Florida Supreme Court issued a ruling that, among other things,
determined that the case could not proceed further as a class
action. The ruling also permitted members of the Engle
class to file individual claims, including claims for
punitive damages, through January 11, 2008. RJR Tobacco has
been served as of January 29, 2010 in 7,711 cases on behalf
of approximately 9,246 plaintiffs. The Engle Progeny
Cases have resulted in increased litigation and trial activity,
including an increased number of
11
adverse verdicts, and increased expenses. For a more complete
description of the Engle Progeny cases, see
Engle Progeny Cases in Item 8,
note 14 to consolidated financial statements.
Also, the consolidated action, In re: Tobacco
Litigation Individual Personal Injury Cases, is pending in
West Virginia, against both RJR Tobacco and B&W. The case
consists of over 600 plaintiffs and will be tried in a single
proceeding. Trial began February 1, 2010, but a mistrial
was declared February 3, 2010. A new trial is scheduled to
begin June 1, 2010. For a more complete description of this
case, see West Virginia IPIC in
Item 8, note 14 to consolidated financial statements.
It is likely that similar legal actions, proceedings and claims
arising out of the sale, distribution, manufacture, development,
advertising, marketing and claimed health effects of cigarettes
and smokeless tobacco products will continue to be filed against
RJR Tobacco, the Conwood companies, or their affiliates and
indemnitees and other tobacco companies for the foreseeable
future.
Victories by plaintiffs in highly publicized cases against RJR
Tobacco and other tobacco companies regarding the health effects
of smoking may stimulate further claims. A material increase in
the number of pending claims could significantly increase
defense costs. In addition, adverse outcomes in pending cases
could have adverse effects on the ability of RJR Tobacco and its
indemnitees, including B&W, to prevail in other smoking and
health litigation.
For a more complete description of the litigation involving RAI
and its operating subsidiaries, including RJR Tobacco and the
Conwood companies, see Litigation Affecting
the Cigarette Industry and Smokeless
Tobacco Litigation in Item 8, note 14 to
consolidated financial statements.
The verdict and order in the case brought by the
U.S. Department of Justice, while not final, could subject
RJR Tobacco to additional, substantial marketing restrictions as
well as significant financial burdens, which would negatively
impact the results of operations, cash flows and the financial
position of RJR Tobacco and, consequently, of RAI.
In September 1999, the U.S. Department of Justice brought
an action against RJR Tobacco, B&W and other tobacco
companies. The government sought, in addition to other remedies,
pursuant to the civil provisions of RICO, disgorgement of
profits in an amount of approximately $280 billion, the
government contends have been earned as a consequence of a RICO
racketeering enterprise. In August 2006, the court
found certain defendants, including RJR Tobacco, liable for the
RICO claims, but did not impose any direct financial penalties.
Instead, the court, among other things, 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, and ordered the defendants to issue
corrective communications on five subjects,
including smoking and health, and addiction.
Both sides have appealed. In October 2006, the U.S. Court
of Appeals granted the defendants motion to stay pending
the outcome of the defendants appeal. On May 22,
2009, the Court of Appeals affirmed in part the trial
courts order and remanded for further proceedings. The
parties petitions for writ of certiorari from the
U.S. Supreme Court are due February 19, 2010. If the
order is affirmed without modification, then RJR Tobacco
believes that certain provisions of the order would have adverse
business effects on the marketing of RJR Tobaccos current
product portfolio and that such effects could be material. Also,
if the order is affirmed, then RJR Tobacco would incur costs in
connection with complying with the order, such as the costs of
corrective communications. In addition, the DOJ has preserved
its right to seek review of the district courts denial of
the governments request for disgorgement of profits and
other remedies, which could have a material adverse impact on
the results of operations, cash flows and financial position of
RJR Tobacco and, consequently, of RAI.
For a more complete description of this case, see
Health-Care Cost Recovery Cases
Department of Justice Case in Item 8, note 14 to
consolidated financial statements.
12
RJR Tobaccos overall retail market share of cigarettes
has declined in recent years and may continue to decline; if RJR
Tobacco is not able to continue to grow market share of its
growth brands, or develop, produce or market new alternative
tobacco products profitably, results of operations, cash flows
and financial position of RJR Tobacco and, consequently, of RAI
could be adversely impacted.
RJR Tobaccos U.S. retail market share of cigarettes
has been declining for a number of years, and may continue to
decline. According to data from IRI/Capstone, RJR Tobaccos
share of the U.S. cigarette retail market declined slightly
to 28.3% in 2009 from 28.4% in 2008, continuing a trend in
effect for several years. If RJR Tobaccos growth brands do
not continue to grow combined market share, results of
operations, cash flows and financial position will be adversely
affected. In addition, consumer health concerns, changes in
adult consumer preferences and changes in regulations have
prompted RJR Tobacco to introduce new alternative tobacco
products. Consumer acceptance of these new products, such as
CAMEL Snus or CAMEL Dissolvables, may fall below expectations.
Furthermore, RJR Tobacco may not find vendors willing to produce
alternative tobacco products resulting in additional capital
expenditures for RJR Tobacco.
RJR Tobacco is dependent on the U.S. cigarette market,
which it expects to continue to decline, negatively impacting
revenue.
The international rights to substantially all of RJR
Tobaccos brands were sold in 1999 to JTI and no
international rights were acquired in connection with the
B&W business combination. Therefore, RJR Tobacco is
dependent on the U.S. cigarette market. Price increases,
restrictions on advertising and promotions, funding of smoking
prevention campaigns, increases in regulation and excise taxes,
health concerns, a decline in the social acceptability of
smoking, increased pressure from anti-tobacco groups and other
factors have reduced U.S. cigarette consumption.
U.S. cigarette consumption is expected to continue to
decline. In addition, RJR Tobacco believes its consumers are
more price-sensitive than consumers of competing brands, which
may result in some consumers switching to a lower priced brand.
RJR Tobacco is RAIs largest operating segment. As such, it
is the primary source of RAIs revenue, operating income
and cash flows.
RJR Tobaccos contract manufacturing agreements with BAT
may end in 2014.
RJR Tobaccos contract manufacturing for BAT accounted for
5% of total RAI sales and approximately 22% of total RJR Tobacco
cigarette production in 2009. These contract manufacturing
agreements may expire at the end of 2014. If BATs
contracts are not renewed or extended or if sales under these
contracts decline, RJR Tobaccos revenue, operating income
and cash flows will be unfavorably impacted.
In the U.S., tobacco products are subject to substantial and
increasing regulation and taxation, which has a negative effect
on revenue and profitability.
Tobacco products are subject to substantial federal and state
excise taxes in the United States. On February 4, 2009,
President Obama signed into law, effective April 1, 2009,
an increase of $0.62 in the federal excise tax per pack of
cigarettes, and significant increases on other tobacco products,
to fund expansion of the SCHIP.
As a result, the federal excise tax rate for snuff increased
$0.925 per pound to $1.51 per pound. The federal excise tax on
small cigars, defined as those weighing three pounds or less per
thousand, increased $48.502 per thousand to $50.33 per thousand.
In addition, the federal excise tax rate for roll-your-own
tobacco increased from $1.097 per pound to $24.78 per pound.
In addition to federal and state excise taxes, certain city and
county governments also impose substantial excise taxes on
tobacco products sold. Increased excise taxes are likely to
result in declines in overall sales volume and shifts by
consumers to less expensive brands.
A wide variety of federal, state and local laws limit the
advertising, sale and use of cigarettes, and these laws have
proliferated in recent years. For example, many local laws
prohibit smoking in restaurants and other public places. Private
businesses also have adopted regulations that prohibit or
restrict, or are intended to discourage, smoking. Such laws and
regulations also are likely to result in a decline in the
overall sales volume of cigarettes. For additional information
on the issues described above, see
Governmental Activity in
Managements Discussion and Analysis of Financial
Condition and Results of Operations in Item 7.
13
RAIs operating subsidiaries are subject to significant
limitations on advertising and marketing of tobacco products,
which could harm the value of their existing brands or their
ability to launch new brands, thus negatively impacting
revenue.
In the United States, television and radio advertisements of
cigarettes have been prohibited since 1971, and television and
radio advertisements of smokeless tobacco products have been
prohibited since 1986. Under the MSA, certain of RAIs
operating subsidiaries, including RJR Tobacco, cannot use
billboard advertising, cartoon characters, sponsorship of
certain events, non-tobacco merchandise bearing their brand
names and various other advertising and marketing techniques. In
addition, the MSA prohibits targeting of youth in advertising,
promotion or marketing of tobacco products, including the
smokeless tobacco products of RJR Tobacco. The Conwood companies
are not participants in the MSA. Although these restrictions
were intended to ensure that tobacco advertising was not aimed
at young people, some of the restrictions also may limit the
ability of RAIs operating subsidiaries to communicate with
adult tobacco users. Additional restrictions, such as the FDA
regulations discussed below, may be imposed legislatively or
agreed to in the future.
The regulation of tobacco products by the Food and Drug
Administration may adversely affect RAIs sales and
operating profit.
On June 22, 2009, President Obama signed into law the FDA
Tobacco Act, which granted the FDA broad authority over the
manufacture, sale, marketing and packaging of tobacco products.
It is likely that the FDA Tobacco Act could result in a decrease
in cigarette and smokeless tobacco sales in the United States,
including sales of RJR Tobaccos and Conwoods brands,
and an increase in costs to RJR Tobacco and Conwood, resulting
in a material adverse effect on RAIs financial condition,
results of operations and cash flows. RAI believes that such
regulation may adversely affect the ability of its operating
subsidiaries to compete against their larger competitor, Altria
Group Inc., which may be able to more quickly and
cost-effectively comply with these new rules and regulations.
The FDA has yet to issue guidance with respect to many
provisions of the FDA Tobacco Act, which may result in less
efficient compliance efforts. Finally, the ability of RAIs
operating companies to gain efficient market clearance for new
tobacco products could be affected by FDA rules and regulations.
For a detailed description of the FDA Tobacco Act, see
Governmental Activity in
Managements Discussion and Analysis of Financial
Condition and Results of Operations in Item 7.
RJR Tobaccos and Conwoods volumes, market share
and profitability may be adversely affected by competitive
actions and pricing pressures in the marketplace.
The tobacco industry is highly competitive. Among the major
manufacturers, brands primarily compete on product quality,
price, brand recognition, brand imagery and packaging.
Substantial marketing support, merchandising display,
discounting, promotions and other financial incentives generally
are required to maintain or improve a brands market
position or introduce a new brand.
In addition, substantial payment obligations under the State
Settlement Agreements adversely affect RJR Tobaccos
ability to compete with manufacturers of deep-discount
cigarettes that are not subject to such substantial obligations.
For a more complete description of the State Settlement
Agreements, see Health-Care Cost Recovery
Cases State Settlement Agreements in
Item 8, note 14 to consolidated financial statements.
Conwoods largest competitor, USSTC, was acquired by the
parent company of Philip Morris USA, Inc. in January 2009. This
acquisition of USSTC has changed the competitive dynamics with
heavy promotions and competitive pricing. In addition, the
possibility of combining pricing and merchandising display for
cigarettes and smokeless tobacco products could adversely affect
Conwoods and RJR Tobaccos market share, which would
adversely affect RAIs profitability and revenues.
Increases in commodity prices will increase costs and may
reduce profitability.
Increases in the cost of tobacco leaf, other raw materials and
other commodities used in RAIs operating
subsidiaries products could cause profits to decline.
14
Certain of RAIs operating subsidiaries may be required
to write-down intangible assets, including goodwill, due to
impairment, thus reducing operating profit.
Intangible assets include goodwill, trademarks and other
intangibles. The determination of fair value involves
considerable estimates and judgment. For goodwill, the
determination of fair value of a reporting unit involves, among
other things, RAIs market capitalization, and application
of the income approach, which includes developing forecasts of
future cash flows and determining an appropriate discount rate.
If goodwill impairment is implied, the fair values of individual
assets and liabilities, including unrecorded intangibles, must
be determined. RAI believes it has based its goodwill impairment
testing on reasonable estimates and assumptions, and during the
annual testing in the fourth quarter of 2009, the estimated fair
value of each of RAIs reporting units was substantially in
excess of its respective carrying value.
Trademarks and other intangible assets with indefinite lives
also are tested for impairment annually, in the fourth quarter.
The aggregate fair value of RAIs operating units
trademarks and other intangible assets was substantially in
excess of their aggregate carrying value. However, the
individual fair value of six indefinite-lived trademarks was
less than 15% in excess of their respective carrying values. The
aggregate carrying value of these six trademarks was
$561 million at December 31, 2009.
The methodology used to determine the fair value of trademarks
includes assumptions with inherent uncertainty, including
projected sales volumes and related projected revenues,
long-term growth rates, royalty rates that a market participant
might assume and judgments regarding the factors to develop an
applied discount rate.
The carrying value of these six trademarks are at risk of
impairment if future projected revenues or long-term growth
rates are lower than those currently projected, or if factors
used in the development of a discount rate result in the
application of a higher discount rate.
Goodwill, all trademarks and other intangible assets are tested
more frequently if events and circumstances indicate that the
asset might be impaired. The carrying value of these intangible
assets could be impaired if a significant adverse change in the
use, life, or brand strategy of the asset is determined, or if a
significant adverse change in the legal and regulatory
environment, business or competitive climate occurs that would
adversely impact the asset. See Item 8, note 3 to
consolidated financial statements for a discussion of the
impairment charges.
Changes in financial market conditions could result in higher
costs and decreased profitability.
Changes in financial market conditions could negatively impact
RAIs interest rate risk, foreign currency exchange rate
risk and the return on corporate cash, thus increasing costs and
reducing profitability. Due to the adverse conditions in the
financial markets during 2009, RAI invested excess cash in
either low interest funds or near zero interest funds, thereby
lowering interest income.
Adverse changes in liquidity in the financial markets could
result in additional realized or unrealized losses on
investments.
Adverse changes in the liquidity in the financial markets could
result in additional realized or unrealized losses associated
with the value of RAIs investments, which would negatively
impact RAIs consolidated results of operations, cash flows
and financial position. As of December 31, 2009,
$80 million of unrealized losses remain in other
comprehensive loss. For more information on investment losses,
see Item 8, note 7 to consolidated financial
statements.
RAIs access to cash could be impacted by adverse
changes in the financial markets and bankruptcy of financial
institutions.
Effective July 3, 2009, the revolving loan commitment of
Lehman Commercial Paper Inc., which filed for protection under
Chapter 11 of the federal Bankruptcy Code in 2008, was
terminated, thereby reducing the total revolving loan
commitments under RAIs credit facility from
$550 million to $498 million. For more information on
participants in RAIs credit facility, see
Liquidity and Financial Condition in
Managements Discussion and Analysis of Financial
Condition and Results of Operations in Item 7.
15
Increases in pension expense or pension funding may reduce
RAIs profitability and cash flow.
RAIs profitability is affected by the costs of pension
benefits available to employees generally hired prior to
January 1, 2004. Adverse changes in investment returns
earned on pension assets and discount rates used to calculate
pension and related liabilities or changes in required pension
funding levels may have an unfavorable impact on pension expense
and cash flows. During 2009, RAI contributed $295 million
to its pension plans and expects to contribute $309 million
to its pension plans in 2010. RAI actively seeks to control
increases in pension expense, but there can be no assurance that
profitability will not be adversely affected. In addition,
changes to pension legislation or changes in pension accounting
may adversely affect profitability and cash flow.
RJR Tobacco relies on outside suppliers to manage certain
non-core business processes. Any interruption in these services
could negatively affect the operations of RJR Tobacco and harm
its reputation and consequently the operations and reputation of
RAI.
In an effort to gain cost efficiencies, RJR Tobacco has
substantially completed the outsourcing of many of its non-core
business processes. Non-core business processes include, but are
not limited to, certain processes relating to information
technology, human resources, trucking and facilities. If any of
the suppliers fail to perform their obligations in a timely
manner or at a satisfactory quality level, RJR Tobacco may fail
to operate effectively and fail to meet shipment demand.
RAIs operating subsidiaries rely on a limited number of
suppliers for direct materials. An interruption in service from
any of these suppliers could adversely affect the results of
operations, cash flows and financial position of RAI.
RAIs operating subsidiaries rely on a limited number of
suppliers for direct materials. If a supplier fails to meet any
of RAIs operating subsidiarys demand for direct
materials, the operating subsidiary may fail to operate
effectively and may fail to meet shipment demand, adversely
impacting RAIs results of operations.
Certain of RAIs operating subsidiaries face a customer
concentration risk. The loss of this customer would result in a
decline in revenue and have an adverse effect on cash flows.
Revenues from McLane Company, Inc., a distributor, comprised 27%
of RAIs consolidated revenues in 2009. The loss of this
customer, or a significant decline in its purchases, could have
a material adverse effect on revenue of RAI.
Fire, violent weather conditions and other disasters may
adversely affect the operations of RAIs operating
subsidiaries.
A major fire, violent weather conditions or other disasters that
affect manufacturing and other facilities of RAIs
operating subsidiaries, or of their suppliers and vendors, could
have a material adverse effect on the operations of RAIs
operating subsidiaries. Despite RAIs insurance coverage
for some of these events, a prolonged interruption in the
manufacturing operations of RAIs operating subsidiaries
could have a material adverse effect on the ability of its
operating subsidiaries to effectively operate their businesses.
The agreement relating to RAIs credit facility contains
restrictive covenants that limit the flexibility of RAI and its
subsidiaries. Breach of those covenants will result in a default
under the agreement relating to the facility.
Restrictions in the agreement relating to RAIs credit
facility limit the ability of RAI and its subsidiaries to obtain
future financing, and could impact the ability to withstand a
future downturn in their businesses or the economy in general,
conduct operations or otherwise take advantage of business
opportunities that may arise. In addition, if RAI does not
comply with these covenants, any indebtedness outstanding under
the credit facility could become immediately due and payable.
The lenders under RAIs credit facility could refuse to
lend funds if RAI is not in compliance with the covenants or
could terminate the credit facility. If RAI were unable to repay
accelerated amounts, the lenders under RAIs credit
facility could initiate a bankruptcy proceeding or liquidation
proceeding.
For more information on the restrictive covenants in RAIs
credit facility, see Item 8, note 11 to consolidated
financial statements.
16
RAI has substantial long-term debt, which could adversely
affect its financial position and its ability to obtain
financing in the future and react to changes in its business.
Because RAI and RJR have principal outstanding long-term notes
of $4.2 billion:
|
|
|
|
|
RAIs ability to obtain additional financing for working
capital, capital expenditures, acquisitions, debt service
requirements or general corporate purposes, and its ability to
satisfy its obligations with respect to its indebtedness, may be
impaired in the future;
|
|
|
|
a substantial portion of RAIs cash flow from operations
must be dedicated to the payment of principal and interest on
its indebtedness, thereby reducing the funds available to it for
other purposes;
|
|
|
|
RAI may be at a disadvantage compared to its competitors with
less debt or comparable debt at more favorable interest
rates; and
|
|
|
|
RAIs flexibility to adjust to changing market conditions
and ability to withstand competitive pressures could be limited,
and it may be more vulnerable to a downturn in general economic
conditions or its business, or be unable to carry out capital
spending that is necessary or important to its growth strategy
and its efforts to improve operating margins.
|
It is likely that RAI will refinance, or attempt to refinance, a
significant portion of its indebtedness prior to maturity
through the incurrence of new indebtedness. There can be no
assurance that RAIs available cash or access to financing
on acceptable terms will be sufficient to satisfy such
indebtedness.
The ability of RAI to access the debt capital markets could
be impaired if the credit rating of its debt securities falls
below investment grade.
The outstanding notes issued by RAI and RJR are rated investment
grade. In certain cases, if RAIs credit rating falls below
investment grade, RAI and certain of RAIs subsidiaries,
including its material domestic subsidiaries, referred to as the
Guarantors, will be required to provide collateral to secure
RAIs credit facility and senior notes. In such event, RAI
may not be able to sell additional debt securities or borrow
money in such amounts, at the times, at the lower interest rates
or upon the more favorable terms and conditions that might be
available if its debt was rated investment grade. In addition,
future debt security issuances or other borrowings may be
subject to further negative terms, including limitations on
indebtedness or similar restrictive covenants.
RAIs credit ratings are influenced by some important
factors not entirely within the control of RAI or its
affiliates, such as tobacco litigation, the regulatory
environment and the performance of suppliers and vendors to
RAIs operating subsidiaries. Moreover, because the kinds
of events and contingencies that may impair RAIs credit
ratings and the ability of RAI and its affiliates to access the
debt capital markets are often the same kinds of events and
contingencies that could cause RAI and its affiliates to seek to
raise additional capital on an urgent basis, RAI and its
affiliates may not be able to issue debt securities or borrow
money upon acceptable terms, or at all, at the times at which
they may most need additional capital.
For more complete information on RAIs borrowing
arrangements, see Item 8, note 11 to consolidated
financial statements.
B&Ws significant equity interest in RAI could be
determinative in matters submitted to a vote by RAI
shareholders, resulting in RAI taking actions that RAIs
other shareholders do not support. B&W also has influence
over RAI by virtue of the governance agreement, which requires
B&Ws approval before RAI takes certain actions.
B&W owns approximately 42% of the outstanding shares of RAI
common stock. Only one other stockholder owns more than 10% of
the outstanding shares of RAI common stock. Unless substantially
all of RAIs public shareholders vote together on matters
presented to RAI shareholders, B&W would have the power to
determine the outcome of matters submitted to a shareholder vote.
17
Moreover, in connection with the B&W business combination,
RAI, B&W and BAT entered into an agreement, referred to as
the governance agreement, relating to various aspects of
RAIs corporate governance. Under the governance agreement,
the approval of B&W, as a RAI shareholder, is required in
connection with, among other things, the following matters:
|
|
|
|
|
the sale or transfer of certain RAI intellectual property
associated with B&W brands having an international
presence, other than in connection with a sale of RAI; and
|
|
|
|
RAIs adoption of any takeover defense measures that would
apply to the acquisition of equity securities of RAI by B&W
or its affiliates, other than the adoption of the RAI rights
plan.
|
Such influence could result in RAI taking actions that
RAIs other shareholders do not support.
Under the governance agreement, B&W is entitled to
nominate certain persons to RAIs Board, and the approvals
of the majority of such persons is required before certain
actions may be taken, even though such persons represent less
than a majority of the entire Board. In addition, certain
provisions of RAIs articles of incorporation may create
conflicts of interest between RAI and certain of these
persons.
Under the governance agreement, B&W, based upon its current
equity stake in RAI, is entitled to nominate five directors to
RAIs Board, at least three of whom are required to be
independent directors and two of whom may be executive officers
of BAT or any of its subsidiaries. RAIs Board currently is
comprised of 12 persons, including B&Ws five
designees. Matters requiring the approval of RAIs Board
generally require the affirmative vote of a majority of the
directors present at a meeting. Under the governance agreement,
however, the approval of a majority of B&Ws designees
on RAIs Board is required in connection with the following
matters:
|
|
|
|
|
any issuance of RAI securities in excess of 5% of its
outstanding voting stock, unless at such time B&Ws
ownership interest in RAI is less than 32%; and
|
|
|
|
any repurchase of RAI common stock, subject to a number of
exceptions, unless at such time B&Ws ownership
interest in RAI is less than 25%.
|
As a result, B&Ws designees on RAIs Board may
prevent the foregoing transactions from being effected,
notwithstanding a majority of the entire Board may have voted to
approve such transactions.
Under RAIs articles of incorporation, a B&W
designated director who is affiliated with, or employed by, BAT
or its subsidiaries and affiliates is not required to present a
transaction, relationship, arrangement or other opportunity, all
of which are collectively referred to as a business opportunity,
to RAI if that business opportunity does not relate primarily to
the United States.
B&Ws significant ownership interest in RAI, and
RAIs shareholder rights plan, classified board of
directors and other anti-takeover defenses could deter
acquisition proposals and make it difficult for a third party to
acquire control of RAI without the cooperation of B&W. This
could have a negative effect on the price of RAI common
stock.
As RAIs largest shareholder, B&W could vote its
shares of RAI common stock against any takeover proposal
submitted for shareholder approval or refuse to accept any
tender offer for shares of RAI common stock. This right would
make it very difficult for a third party to acquire RAI without
B&W consent. In addition, RAI has a shareholder rights
plan, a classified board of directors and other takeover
defenses in its articles of incorporation and bylaws.
B&Ws ownership interest in RAI and these defenses
could discourage potential acquisition proposals and could delay
or prevent a change in control of RAI. These deterrents could
adversely affect the price of RAI common stock and make it very
difficult to remove or replace members of the board of directors
or management of RAI without cooperation of B&W.
18
RAI shareholders may be adversely affected by the expiration
of the standstill and transfer restrictions in the governance
agreement, which would enable B&W to, among other things,
transfer all or a significant percentage of its RAI shares to a
third party, seek additional representation on the RAI board of
directors, replace existing RAI directors, solicit proxies or
otherwise acquire effective control of RAI.
The standstill provisions contained in the governance agreement
generally restrict B&W from acquiring additional shares of
RAI common stock and taking other specified actions as a
shareholder of RAI. These restrictions generally will expire
upon the earlier of ten years from the date of the B&W
business combination and the date on which a significant
transaction, as defined in the governance agreement, is
consummated or occurs.
Subject to the terms of the RAI shareholder rights plan,
B&W will be free after expiration of the standstill period
to increase its ownership interest in RAI to more than 50% and
may use this controlling vote to elect any number of or all the
members of RAIs board of directors.
In addition, if the transfer restrictions in the governance
agreement are terminated, subject to the terms of the RAI
shareholder rights plan, there will be no contractual
restrictions on B&Ws ability to sell or transfer its
shares of RAI common stock on the open market, in privately
negotiated transactions or otherwise. These sales or transfers
could create a substantial decline in the price of shares of RAI
common stock or, if these sales or transfers were made to a
single buyer or group of buyers that own RAI shares, could
result in a third party acquiring effective control of RAI.
|
|
Item 1B.
|
Unresolved
Staff Comments
|
None.
The executive offices of RAI and RJR Tobacco are located in
Winston-Salem, North Carolina, and the executive offices of the
Conwood companies are located in Memphis, Tennessee. RJR
Tobaccos manufacturing facilities are located in the
Winston-Salem, North Carolina area, and Conwoods primary
manufacturing facilities are located in Memphis, Tennessee;
Clarksville, Tennessee and Winston-Salem, North Carolina. Other
Conwood facilities are located in Bowling Green, Kentucky and
Springfield, Tennessee. During 2009, Conwood began capacity
upgrade and expansion projects at newly acquired sites in
Memphis, Tennessee and Clarksville, Tennessee. The new Memphis
facility will replace the current Memphis facility with
production expected to begin in 2012, while the new Clarksville
facility will provide for capacity expansion with initial
production beginning in 2010. Both facilities will be FDA
compliant. Included in the Conwood segment is Lanes
manufacturing facility, which is located in Tucker, Georgia.
Santa Fes primary manufacturing facility is located
in Oxford, North Carolina. An indirect subsidiary of RAI has a
manufacturing facility located in Puerto Rico. All of RAIs
operating subsidiaries executive offices and manufacturing
facilities are owned. RAIs operating subsidiaries continue
to evaluate capacity rationalization, which may result in the
consolidation or closure of some facilities.
|
|
Item 3.
|
Legal
Proceedings
|
See Item 8, note 14 to consolidated financial
statements for disclosure of legal proceedings involving RAI and
its operating subsidiaries.
|
|
Item 4.
|
Submission
of Matters to a Vote of Security Holders
|
None.
Executive
Officers and Certain Significant Employees of the
Registrant
The executive officers of RAI are set forth below:
Susan M. Ivey. Ms. Ivey, 51, has been
President and Chief Executive Officer of RAI since January 2004,
and was elected the Chairman of the Board of RAI effective
January 1, 2006. Ms. Ivey also became President of RAI
Services Company in January 2010. She served as Chairman of the
Board of RJR Tobacco from July 2004 to May
19
2008. From July 2004 to December 2006, she also served as Chief
Executive Officer of RJR Tobacco. She served as President and
Chief Executive Officer of B&W from 2001 to 2004.
Ms. Ivey also served as a director of B&W from 2000 to
2004 and Chairman of the Board of B&W from January 2003 to
2004. Ms. Ivey commenced serving on the Board of RAI as of
January 2004. She also is a member of the board of directors of
R. R. Donnelley & Sons Company. In addition,
Ms. Ivey is a member of the boards of directors of the
United Way of Forsyth County, the Winston-Salem YWCA and the
University of Florida Foundation; and she serves on the boards
of trustees of Wake Forest University, Senior Services, Inc. and
Salem College.
Thomas R. Adams. Mr. Adams, 59, has been
Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of RAI
since January 2008 and Executive Vice President and Chief
Financial Officer of RAI Services Company since January 2010. In
addition, he has served on the board of directors for RAI
Services Company since January 2010. Mr. Adams previously
served as Senior Vice President and Chief Accounting Officer of
RAI from March 2007 to December 2007. He served as Senior Vice
President-Business Processes of RAI from September 2006 to March
2007 and of RJR Tobacco from May 2005 to November 2006.
Mr. Adams also served as Senior Vice President and Chief
Accounting Officer of both RAI and RJR Tobacco from July 2004 to
April 2005. From June 1999 to July 2004, he served as Senior
Vice President and Controller of both RJR Tobacco and RJR.
Mr. Adams is a member of the boards of directors of
Allegacy Federal Credit Union and the Old Hickory Council of the
Boy Scouts of America and the board of commissioners of the
Housing Authority of Winston-Salem.
Lisa J. Caldwell. Ms. Caldwell, 49, has
been Executive Vice President and Chief Human Resources Officer
of RAI since May 2009 and RAI Services Company since January
2010. Ms. Caldwell has served on the board of directors of
RAI Services Company since January 2010. She was previously
Executive Vice President and Chief Human Resources Officer for
RJR Tobacco from May 2009 to January 2010. Ms. Caldwell
served as Executive Vice President Human Resources
of RAI and RJR Tobacco since June 2008. She served as Senior
Vice President Human Resources of RAI from November
2006 to June 2008, after having served as Vice
President Human Resources of RAI from September 2004
to November 2006. She also served as Senior Vice
President Human Resources of RJR Tobacco from July
2007 to June 2008, after having served as Vice
President Human Resources of RJR Tobacco from
January 2002 to November 2006. Prior to 2002, Ms. Caldwell
held numerous human resources positions with RJR Tobacco since
joining RJR Tobacco in 1991. Ms. Caldwell serves on the
University of North Carolina Board of Visitors.
Daniel (Daan) M. Delen. Mr. Delen, 44,
joined RJR Tobacco as President and Chief Executive Officer in
January 2007, and was elected Chairman of the Board of RJR
Tobacco in May 2008. Prior to joining RJR Tobacco,
Mr. Delen was President of BAT Ltd. Japan from
August 2004 to December 2006 and Senior Vice President of
Marketing and Sales for B&W from 2001 to July 2004. He held
various other positions with BAT after joining BAT in 1989.
Mr. Delen is a member of the board of directors of
Winston-Salem Alliance.
Daniel A. Fawley. Mr. Fawley, 52, has
served as Senior Vice President and Treasurer of RAI, RJR
Tobacco and RJR since September 2004 and Senior Vice President
and Treasurer of RAI Services Company since January 2010. He was
previously Vice President and Assistant Treasurer of RJR from
1999 until July 2004 and of RAI from July 2004 until September
2004. Mr. Fawley is a member of the board of directors of
the Reynolds American Foundation, the Board of Trustees of the
Arts Council Endowment Fund, Inc. and the Finance Advisory Board
for the Finance Academy.
McDara P. Folan, III. Mr. Folan, 51,
has been Senior Vice President, Deputy General Counsel and
Secretary of RAI since July 2004 and Senior Vice President,
Deputy General Counsel and Secretary of RAI Services Company
since January 2010. Mr. Folan served as Vice President,
Deputy General Counsel and Secretary of RJR from June 1999 to
July 2004, and has been Senior Vice President and Secretary and
Director of RJR since July 2004. He also was Vice President,
Deputy General Counsel and Secretary of RJR Tobacco from June
1999 to March 2000, and currently serves as Assistant Secretary
of RJR Tobacco. Mr. Folan serves on the advisory board for
Brenner Childrens Hospital, the National Advisory Council
of Reynolda House Museum of American Art and the board of
advisors of Salem College and Academy and is a member of the
board of trustees of the Arts Council of Winston-Salem and
Forsyth County and the Arts Council Endowment Fund, Inc.
20
Jeffery S. Gentry, PhD. Dr. Gentry, 52,
became Executive Vice President Operations and Chief
Scientific Officer of RJR Tobacco on January 1, 2010, after
having served as RAI Group Executive Vice President since
April 1, 2008. Dr. Gentry has served on the board of
directors of RJR Tobacco since January 2010. He was previously
Executive Vice President Research and Development of
RJR Tobacco from December 2004, after serving as Vice
President Product Development since 2000.
Dr. Gentry joined RJR Tobacco in 1986 as a research and
development chemist. He is the co-founder of No Limits II, a
non-profit organization providing social opportunities for
disabled adults in the Winston-Salem area.
Andrew D. Gilchrist. Mr. Gilchrist, 37,
became Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of
RJR Tobacco and Executive Vice President and Chief Information
Officer of RAI Services Company on January 1, 2010, after
having served as Executive Vice President, Chief Financial
Officer and Chief Information Officer of RJR Tobacco from July
2008 until January 2010. Mr. Gilchrist has served on the
board of directors of RJR Tobacco since May 2008. He also served
as Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of RJR
Tobacco from November 2006 to July 2008, after having served as
Vice President Integrated Business Management of RJR
Tobacco from January 2006 to November 2006. Prior to 2006,
Mr. Gilchrist served as Senior Director
Business Development since joining RAI in 2004. Prior to July
2004, Mr. Gilchrist held various positions with B&W and its
parent company, BAT. Mr. Gilchrist is a member of the board
of trustees of the Arts Council of Winston-Salem and Forsyth
County.
E. Julia (Judy)
Lambeth. Ms. Lambeth, 58, joined RAI as
Executive Vice President Corporate Affairs, General
Counsel and Assistant Secretary in September 2006 and also
became Executive Vice President Corporate Affairs,
General Counsel and Assistant Secretary of RAI Services Company
in January 2010. She has served on the board of directors of RAI
Services Company since January 2010. Prior to joining RAI,
Ms. Lambeth served as Corporate Secretary and Deputy
General Counsel, Corporate Services for ConocoPhillips from 2002
to 2006. Ms. Lambeth is a member of the Wake Forest Law
School Board of Visitors and serves on the board of directors of
Reynolds American Foundation, the Winston-Salem Symphony and
Southeastern Center for Contemporary Art.
J. Brice
OBrien. Mr. OBrien, 41, was
named Executive Vice President Consumer Marketing of
RJR Tobacco on January 1, 2010, after having served as
President of Reynolds Innovations Inc. since January 2009. He
served as Senior Vice President Consumer Marketing
of RJR Tobacco from January 2006 until January 2009, after
serving as Vice President Marketing since October
2004. Prior to 2004, he held various positions with RJR Tobacco
after joining RJR Tobacco in 1995.
Tommy J. Payne. Mr. Payne, 52, was named
President of Niconovum USA, Inc. on January 1, 2010, after
having served as Executive Vice President Public
Affairs of RAI from November 2006 to January 2010 and RJR
Tobacco from May 2008 to January 2010. Mr. Payne previously
served as Executive Vice President External
Relations of RAI from July 2004 to November 2006, and RJR
Tobacco from September 1999 to November 2006. Mr. Payne
served as Executive Vice President External
Relations at RJR from July 1999 to July 2004. Prior to that
time, he held various positions after joining RJR in 1988.
Mr. Payne serves on the board of directors and executive
committee of the North Carolina Chamber and the board of
directors of the Tobacco Manufacturers Association.
Frederick W. Smothers. Mr. Smothers, 46,
has served as Senior Vice President and Chief Accounting Officer
of RAI since January 2008 and RAI Services Company since January
2010. Mr. Smothers served as Vice President and Corporate
Controller of RAI from October 2007 to December 2007. Prior to
joining RAI, Mr. Smothers was an independent management
consultant from 2002 until 2007, serving as Chief Executive
Officer of ATRS Consulting from 2005 until October 2007,
providing general management consulting to consumer products and
manufacturing clients, including RAI. From 1986 until 2002,
Mr. Smothers was employed by the accounting firm of
Deloitte & Touche LLP, including four years as partner.
Robert D. Stowe. Mr. Stowe, 52, was named
Executive Vice President Trade Marketing of RJR
Tobacco on January 1, 2010, after having served as Senior
Vice President Trade Marketing of RJR Tobacco from
January 2006 to January 2010. He also served as an Area Vice
President of RJR Tobacco from July 2004 to January 2006. Prior
to July 2004, Mr. Stowe held various positions with
B&W.
21
E. Kenan Whitehurst. Mr. Whitehurst,
53, has been Senior Vice President Strategy and
Business Development of RAI since November 2006. He was
previously Vice President Investor Relations of RAI
from July 2004 until November 2006. From January 2001 to July
2004, Mr. Whitehurst served as Vice President
Corporate Business Development for RJR Tobacco, after serving as
its Vice President Marketing from 2000 to 2001.
Prior to 2000, he held various positions with RJR Tobacco after
joining RJR Tobacco in 1988.
The chief executive officers of RAIs other principal
operating subsidiaries are set forth below:
Nicholas Bumbacco. Mr. Bumbacco, 45, was
named President and Chief Executive Officer of Santa Fe on
March 1, 2009. Previously he served as President of GPI
from September 2007 until February 2009. Mr. Bumbacco
served as Vice President Strategy Development for
RJR Tobacco from January 2007 until September 2007. He served as
President and Chief Executive Officer of Lane from October 2005
until January 2007 after being promoted from Vice
President Trade Marketing of Lane. Prior to October
2005, he held various positions with B&W since joining
B&W in 1999.
Bryan K. Stockdale. Mr. Stockdale, 51,
was named President and Chief Executive Officer of American
Snuff Company, LLC on February 1, 2009. He previously
served as Senior Vice President Marketing Operations
for RJR Tobacco from January 2006 until February 2009 and Vice
President Trade Marketing from September 1996
through December 2005.
22
PART II
|
|
Item 5.
|
Market
for Registrants Common Equity, Related Stockholder Matters
and Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities
|
RAI common stock, par value $.0001 per share, is listed on the
NYSE under the trading symbol RAI. On
January 29, 2010, there were approximately 17,100 holders
of record of RAI common stock. Shareholders whose shares are
held of record by a broker or clearing agency are not included
in this amount; however, each of those brokers or clearing
agencies is included as one holder of record. The closing price
of RAI common stock on January 29, 2010, was $53.20 per
share.
The cash dividends declared, and high and low sales prices per
share for RAI common stock on the NYSE Composite Tape, as
reported by the NYSE, were as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dividends
|
|
|
Price Per Share
|
|
Declared per
|
|
|
High
|
|
Low
|
|
Share
|
|
2009:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
First Quarter
|
|
$
|
41.16
|
|
|
$
|
31.55
|
|
|
$
|
0.85
|
|
Second Quarter
|
|
|
42.06
|
|
|
|
35.97
|
|
|
|
0.85
|
|
Third Quarter
|
|
|
46.95
|
|
|
|
37.91
|
|
|
|
0.85
|
|
Fourth Quarter
|
|
|
54.26
|
|
|
|
43.82
|
|
|
|
0.90
|
|
2008:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
First Quarter
|
|
$
|
72.00
|
|
|
$
|
58.86
|
|
|
$
|
0.85
|
|
Second Quarter
|
|
|
60.80
|
|
|
|
46.40
|
|
|
|
0.85
|
|
Third Quarter
|
|
|
57.73
|
|
|
|
45.61
|
|
|
|
0.85
|
|
Fourth Quarter
|
|
|
50.00
|
|
|
|
37.21
|
|
|
|
0.85
|
|
On October 6, 2009, RAIs board of directors raised
the quarterly cash dividend to $0.90 per common share. On
February 2, 2010, the board of directors of RAI declared a
quarterly cash dividend of $0.90, or $3.60 on an annualized
basis, per common share. The dividends will be paid on
April 1, 2010, to shareholders of record as of
March 10, 2010. The current dividend reflects RAIs
policy of paying dividends to the holders of RAI common stock in
an aggregate amount that is approximately 75% of RAIs
annual consolidated net income.
RAI repurchases and cancels shares of its common stock forfeited
with respect to the tax liability associated with vesting of
restricted stock grants under the RAI Long-Term Incentive Plan,
referred to as the LTIP. During 2009, at a cost of
$5 million, RAI purchased 154,441 shares that were
forfeited with respect to tax liabilities associated with
restricted stock vesting under its LTIP.
On April 29, 2008, RAIs board of directors authorized
RAIs repurchase, from time to time on or before
April 30, 2009, of up to $350 million of outstanding
shares of RAI common stock in open-market or privately
negotiated transactions. RAI and B&W entered into an
agreement, pursuant to which B&W agreed to participate in
the repurchase program on a basis approximately proportionate
with B&Ws 42% ownership of RAI common stock. RAI
repurchased and cancelled 3,817,095 shares of RAI common
stock for $207 million under the above share repurchase
programs in 2008. RAI did not repurchase any RAI common stock
under this program in 2009.
For equity-based benefit plan information, see Item 8,
note 16 to consolidated financial statements.
23
Performance
Graph
Set forth below is a line graph comparing, for the period which
commenced on December 31, 2004, and ended on
December 31, 2009, the cumulative shareholder return of
$100 invested in RAI common stock with the cumulative return of
$100 invested in the Standard & Poors 500 Index
and the Standard & Poors Tobacco Index.
COMPARISON
OF 5 YEAR CUMULATIVE TOTAL
RETURN(1)
Among Reynolds American Inc., The S&P 500 Index
and The S&P Tobacco Index
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
12/31/04
|
|
12/31/05
|
|
12/31/06
|
|
12/31/07
|
|
12/31/08
|
|
12/31/09
|
|
Reynolds American Inc.
|
|
$
|
100.00
|
|
|
$
|
127.36
|
|
|
$
|
183.24
|
|
|
$
|
194.05
|
|
|
$
|
126.72
|
|
|
$
|
181.01
|
|
S&P 500
|
|
|
100.00
|
|
|
|
104.91
|
|
|
|
121.48
|
|
|
|
128.16
|
|
|
|
80.74
|
|
|
|
102.11
|
|
S&P
Tobacco(2)
|
|
|
100.00
|
|
|
|
125.19
|
|
|
|
152.93
|
|
|
|
183.29
|
|
|
|
149.84
|
|
|
|
188.21
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Assumes that $100 was invested in RAI common stock on
December 31, 2004, and that in each case all dividends were
reinvested. |
|
(2) |
|
The S&P Tobacco Index includes as of December 31,
2009, the following companies: Altria Group Inc.; Lorillard
Inc.; Philip Morris International; and Reynolds American Inc. |
24
|
|
Item 6.
|
Selected
Financial Data
|
The selected historical consolidated financial data as of
December 31, 2009 and 2008, and for each of the years in
the three-year period ended December 31, 2009, are derived
from the consolidated financial statements and accompanying
notes, which have been audited by RAIs independent
registered public accounting firm. The selected historical
consolidated financial data as of December 31, 2007, 2006
and 2005, and for the years ended December 31, 2006 and
2005, are derived from audited consolidated financial statements
not presented or incorporated by reference. The consolidated
financial statements of RAI include the results of the Conwood
companies subsequent to May 31, 2006. For further
information, including the impact of new accounting
developments, restructuring and impairment charges, you should
read this table in conjunction with Managements
Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of
Operations in Item 7 and the consolidated financial
statements.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For the Years Ended December 31,
|
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
|
(Dollars in Millions, Except Per Share Amounts)
|
|
|
Results of Operations:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net
sales(1)
|
|
$
|
8,419
|
|
|
$
|
8,845
|
|
|
$
|
9,023
|
|
|
$
|
8,510
|
|
|
$
|
8,256
|
|
Income from continuing operations before extraordinary
item(1)(2)(3)(4)
|
|
|
962
|
|
|
|
1,338
|
|
|
|
1,307
|
|
|
|
1,136
|
|
|
|
985
|
|
Income from discontinued operations
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2
|
|
Extraordinary item gain on acquisition
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
|
|
|
|
74
|
|
|
|
55
|
|
Net income
|
|
|
962
|
|
|
|
1,338
|
|
|
|
1,308
|
|
|
|
1,210
|
|
|
|
1,042
|
|
Per Share
Data(5):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Basic income from continuing operations
|
|
|
3.30
|
|
|
|
4.56
|
|
|
|
4.43
|
|
|
|
3.85
|
|
|
|
3.34
|
|
Diluted income from continuing operations
|
|
|
3.30
|
|
|
|
4.56
|
|
|
|
4.43
|
|
|
|
3.84
|
|
|
|
3.34
|
|
Basic income from discontinued operations
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
0.01
|
|
Diluted income from discontinued operations
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
0.01
|
|
Basic income from extraordinary item
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
0.25
|
|
|
|
0.18
|
|
Diluted income from extraordinary item
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
0.25
|
|
|
|
0.18
|
|
Basic net income
|
|
|
3.30
|
|
|
|
4.56
|
|
|
|
4.43
|
|
|
|
4.10
|
|
|
|
3.53
|
|
Diluted net income
|
|
|
3.30
|
|
|
|
4.56
|
|
|
|
4.43
|
|
|
|
4.09
|
|
|
|
3.53
|
|
Basic weighted average shares, in thousands
|
|
|
291,381
|
|
|
|
293,401
|
|
|
|
295,163
|
|
|
|
295,449
|
|
|
|
294,790
|
|
Diluted average shares, in thousands
|
|
|
291,826
|
|
|
|
293,600
|
|
|
|
295,409
|
|
|
|
295,742
|
|
|
|
295,172
|
|
Cash dividends declared per share of common stock
|
|
$
|
3.45
|
|
|
$
|
3.40
|
|
|
$
|
3.20
|
|
|
$
|
2.75
|
|
|
$
|
2.10
|
|
Balance Sheet Data (at end of periods):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total assets
|
|
|
18,009
|
|
|
|
18,154
|
|
|
|
18,629
|
|
|
|
18,178
|
|
|
|
14,519
|
|
Long-term debt (less current maturities)
|
|
|
4,136
|
|
|
|
4,486
|
|
|
|
4,515
|
|
|
|
4,389
|
|
|
|
1,558
|
|
Shareholders equity
|
|
|
6,498
|
|
|
|
6,237
|
|
|
|
7,466
|
|
|
|
7,043
|
|
|
|
6,553
|
|
Cash Flow Data:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash from operating activities
|
|
|
1,454
|
|
|
|
1,315
|
|
|
|
1,331
|
|
|
|
1,457
|
|
|
|
1,273
|
|
Net cash from (used in) investing activities
|
|
|
(123
|
)
|
|
|
278
|
|
|
|
763
|
|
|
|
(3,531
|
)
|
|
|
(989
|
)
|
Net cash (used in) from financing activities
|
|
|
(1,192
|
)
|
|
|
(1,206
|
)
|
|
|
(1,312
|
)
|
|
|
2,174
|
|
|
|
(450
|
)
|
Other Data:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ratio of earnings to fixed
charges(6)
|
|
|
6.9
|
|
|
|
8.5
|
|
|
|
7.0
|
|
|
|
7.4
|
|
|
|
12.2
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Net sales and cost of products sold exclude excise taxes of
$3,927 million, $1,890 million, $2,026 million,
$2,124 million and $2,175 million for the years ended
December 31, 2009, 2008, 2007, 2006 and 2005, respectively. |
|
(2) |
|
Includes gain on termination of joint venture of
$328 million in 2008. |
|
(3) |
|
Includes restructuring and/or asset impairment charges of
$56 million, $90 million, $1 million and
$2 million for the years ended December 31, 2009,
2008, 2006 and 2005, respectively. |
|
(4) |
|
Includes trademark and/or goodwill impairment charges of
$567 million, $318 million, $65 million,
$90 million and $200 million for the years ended
December 31, 2009, 2008, 2007, 2006 and 2005, respectively. |
25
|
|
|
(5) |
|
All share and per share amounts have been retroactively adjusted
to reflect the August 14, 2006,
two-for-one
stock split. Certain per share amounts have been retroactively
adjusted for restated share amounts resulting from the adoption
of revised GAAP effective January 1, 2009. |
|
(6) |
|
Earnings consist of income from continuing operations before
equity earnings, income taxes and fixed charges. Fixed charges
consist of interest on indebtedness, amortization of debt
issuance costs and one-third of operating rental expense,
representative of the interest factor. |
|
|
Item 7.
|
Managements
Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of
Operations
|
The following is a discussion and analysis of RAIs
business, initiatives, critical accounting policies and its
consolidated results of operations and financial position.
Following the overview and discussion of business initiatives,
the critical accounting policies disclose certain accounting
policies that are material to RAIs results of operations
and financial position for the periods presented in this report.
The discussion and analysis of RAIs results of operations
is presented in two comparative sections, 2009 compared with
2008, and 2008 compared with 2007. Disclosures related to
liquidity and financial position complete managements
discussion and analysis. You should read this discussion and
analysis of RAIs consolidated financial position and
results of operations in conjunction with the consolidated
financial statements and the related notes as of
December 31, 2009 and 2008, and for each of the years in
the three-year period ended December 31, 2009.
Overview
and Business Initiatives
RAIs reportable operating segments are RJR Tobacco and
Conwood. The RJR Tobacco segment consists of the primary
operations of R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company. The Conwood
segment consists of Conwood Holdings, Inc., the primary
operations of the Conwood companies and Lane. Two of RAIs
wholly owned subsidiaries, Santa Fe and Niconovum AB, among
others, are included in All Other. RAIs wholly owned
operating subsidiaries have entered into intercompany agreements
for products or services with other RAI operating subsidiaries.
As a result, certain activities of an operating subsidiary may
be included in a different segment of RAI.
RAIs largest reportable operating segment, RJR Tobacco, is
the second largest cigarette manufacturer in the United States.
RJR Tobaccos largest selling cigarette brands, CAMEL, PALL
MALL, WINSTON, KOOL and DORAL, were five of the ten best-selling
brands of cigarettes in the United States as of
December 31, 2009. Those brands, and its other brands,
including SALEM, MISTY and CAPRI, are manufactured in a variety
of styles and marketed in the United States. RJR Tobacco also
manages contract manufacturing of cigarettes and tobacco
products through arrangements with BAT affiliates.
RAIs other reportable operating segment, Conwood, is the
second largest smokeless tobacco products manufacturer in the
United States. Conwoods primary brands include its largest
selling moist snuff brands, GRIZZLY, the best-selling brand of
moist snuff in the United States as of December 31, 2009,
and KODIAK. Conwood also distributes a variety of other tobacco
products, including WINCHESTER and CAPTAIN BLACK little cigars,
and BUGLER roll-your-own tobacco.
Santa Fe manufactures and markets cigarettes and other
tobacco products under the NATURAL AMERICAN SPIRIT brand, as
well as manages super premium brands licensed from BAT,
including DUNHILL and STATE EXPRESS 555. In January 2009, the
activities of GPI were transitioned to other operating
subsidiaries of RAI. The management and export of tobacco
products sold to certain U.S. territories,
U.S. duty-free shops and U.S. overseas military bases
was transferred to RJR Tobacco and sales of NATURAL AMERICAN
SPIRIT in Europe and Japan were transferred to other indirect
subsidiaries of RAI.
RJR
Tobacco
RJR Tobacco primarily conducts business in the highly
competitive U.S. cigarette market, which has a few large
manufacturers and many smaller participants. The
U.S. cigarette market is a mature market in which overall
consumer demand has declined since 1981 and is expected to
continue to decline. Profitability of the U.S. cigarette
industry and RJR Tobacco continues to be adversely impacted by
decreases in consumption, increases in state excise taxes and
governmental regulations and restrictions, such as marketing
limitations, product standards and ingredients legislation.
26
The international rights to substantially all of RJR
Tobaccos brands were sold in 1999 to JTI and no
international rights were acquired in connection with the
B&W business combination. In addition, in connection with
the B&W business combination in 2004, RAI entered into a
non-competition agreement with BAT under which RAIs
operating subsidiaries generally were prohibited, subject to
certain exceptions, from manufacturing and marketing certain
tobacco products outside the United States from the date of the
B&W business combination until July 2009.
Expanding beyond the cigarette market as an innovative tobacco
company, RJR Tobacco offers two types of smoke-free tobacco,
CAMEL Snus and CAMEL Dissolvables. CAMEL Snus, launched
nationally in 2009, is pasteurized tobacco in a small pouch that
provides convenient tobacco consumption. CAMEL Dissolvables
include CAMEL Orbs, Sticks and Strips, all of which are made of
finely milled tobacco and dissolve completely in the mouth.
CAMEL Orbs were launched in three lead markets during the first
quarter of 2009, and CAMEL Sticks and Strips were launched in
those lead markets during the third quarter of 2009.
RJR Tobaccos brand portfolio strategy is based upon three
brand categories: growth, support and non-support. The growth
brands consist of a premium brand, CAMEL, and a value brand,
PALL MALL. Although both of these brands are managed for
long-term market share and profit growth, CAMEL will continue to
receive the most significant investment support. The support
brands include four premium brands, WINSTON, KOOL, SALEM and
CAPRI, and two value brands, DORAL and MISTY, all of which
receive limited marketing support. The non-support brands,
consisting of all other brands, are managed to maximize
near-term profitability. The key objectives of the portfolio
strategy are to ensure the long-term market share growth of the
growth brands while managing the support brands for long-term
sustainability and profitability. At present, RJR Tobaccos
smoke-free products are marketed under the CAMEL brand and focus
on long-term growth.
Competition is based primarily on brand positioning, including
price, product attributes and packaging, consumer loyalty,
promotions, advertising and retail presence. Cigarette brands
produced by the major manufacturers generally require
competitive pricing, substantial marketing support, retail
programs and other incentives to maintain or improve market
position or to introduce a new brand style.
RJR Tobacco is committed to building and maintaining a portfolio
of profitable brands. RJR Tobaccos marketing programs are
designed to strengthen brand image, build brand awareness and
loyalty, and switch adult smokers of competing brands to RJR
Tobacco brands. In addition to building strong brand equity, RJR
Tobaccos marketing approach utilizes a retail pricing
strategy, including discounting at retail, to defend certain
brands shares of market against competitive pricing
pressure. RJR Tobaccos competitive pricing methods may
include list price changes, discounting programs, such as retail
and wholesale buydowns, periodic price reductions, off-invoice
price reductions, dollar-off promotions, free product promotions
and consumer coupons. Retail buydowns refer to payments made to
the retailer to reduce the price that consumers pay at retail.
Consumer coupons generally are distributed by a variety of
methods, including in, or on, the cigarette pack and by direct
mail.
Conwood
Conwood offers a range of differentiated smokeless and other
tobacco products to adult consumers. The moist snuff category is
divided into premium and price-value brands. The moist snuff
category has developed many of the characteristics of the
larger, cigarette market, including multiple pricing tiers with
intense competition, focused marketing programs and significant
product innovation.
In contrast to the declining U.S. cigarette market,
U.S. moist snuff volumes grew over 4% in 2009, driven by
the accelerated growth of price-value brands. Profit margins on
moist snuff products are generally higher than on cigarette
products. Moist snuffs growth is partially attributable to
cigarette smokers switching from cigarettes to smokeless tobacco
products or using both. Within the moist snuff category, premium
brands have lost market share to price-value brands, led by the
growth of GRIZZLY, in recent years. However, during 2009, heavy
promotion and competitive pricing of premium brands have slowed
the growth of the price-value brands.
Conwood faces significant competition in the smokeless tobacco
categories. Similar to the cigarette market, competition is
based primarily on brand positioning and price, as well as
product attributes and packaging, consumer loyalty, promotions,
advertising and retail presence. The parent company of RJR
Tobaccos largest
27
competitor in the cigarette market, Philip Morris USA, Inc.,
completed its acquisition of Conwoods largest competitor,
USSTC, in January 2009.
Critical
Accounting Policies and Estimates
Accounting principles generally accepted in the United States,
referred to as GAAP, require estimates and assumptions to be
made that affect the reported amounts in RAIs consolidated
financial statements and accompanying notes. Some of these
estimates require difficult, subjective
and/or
complex judgments about matters that are inherently uncertain,
and as a result, actual results could differ from those
estimates. Due to the estimation processes involved, the
following summarized accounting policies and their application
are considered to be critical to understanding the business
operations, financial position and results of operations of RAI
and its subsidiaries. For information related to these and other
significant accounting policies, see Item 8, note 1 to
consolidated financial statements.
Litigation
RAI discloses information concerning litigation for which an
unfavorable outcome is more than remote. RAI and its
subsidiaries record their legal expenses and other litigation
costs and related administrative costs as selling, general and
administrative expenses as those costs are incurred. RAI and its
subsidiaries will record any loss related to litigation at such
time as an unfavorable outcome becomes probable and the amount
can be reasonably estimated. When the reasonable estimate is a
range, the recorded loss will be the best estimate within the
range. If no amount in the range is a better estimate than any
other amount, the minimum amount of the range will be recorded.
As discussed in Item 8, note 14 to consolidated
financial statements, RJR Tobacco, the Conwood companies and
their affiliates, including RAI, and indemnitees, have been
named in a number of tobacco-related legal actions, proceedings
or claims seeking damages in amounts ranging into the hundreds
of millions or even billions of dollars. Unfavorable judgments
have been returned in a number of tobacco-related cases and
state enforcement actions. As of January 29, 2010, RJR
Tobacco had paid approximately $12 million since
January 1, 2007, related to unfavorable judgments.
RAI and its subsidiaries believe that they have valid bases for
appeal of adverse verdicts against them and have valid defenses
to all actions and they intend to defend all actions vigorously.
RAIs management continues to conclude that the loss of any
particular smoking and health tobacco litigation claim against
RJR Tobacco or its affiliates or indemnitees, including
B&W, or the loss of any particular claim concerning the use
of smokeless tobacco against the Conwood companies, when viewed
on an individual basis, is not probable or estimable. As of
December 31, 2009, RJR Tobacco had $2 million accrued
for an unfavorable judgment in the Whiteley v R. J. Reynolds
Tobacco Co. case and $2 million accrued for non-smoking
and health litigation. In addition, as of December 31,
2009, RJR, including its subsidiary RJR Tobacco, had liabilities
totaling $94 million that were recorded in connection with
certain non-smoking and health indemnification claims asserted
by JTI relating to certain activities of Northern Brands and
related litigation.
Litigation is subject to many uncertainties, and it is possible
that some of the tobacco-related legal actions, proceedings or
claims could ultimately be decided against RJR Tobacco, the
Conwood companies or their affiliates, including RAI, and
indemnitees. Any unfavorable outcome of such actions could have
a material adverse effect on the consolidated results of
operations, cash flows or financial position of RAI or its
subsidiaries. For further discussion of the litigation and legal
proceedings pending against RAI or its affiliates or
indemnitees, see Item 8, note 14 to consolidated
financial statements.
Settlement
Agreements
RJR Tobacco, Santa Fe and Lane are participants in the MSA,
and RJR Tobacco is a participant in other state settlement
agreements related to governmental health-care cost recovery
actions. Their obligations and the related expense charges under
the State Settlement Agreements are subject to adjustments based
upon, among other things, the volume of cigarettes sold by the
operating subsidiaries, their relative market share and
inflation. Since relative market share is based on cigarette
shipments, the best estimate of the allocation of charges to RJR
Tobacco under these agreements is recorded in cost of products
sold as the products are shipped. Adjustments to these estimates
are recorded in the period that the change becomes probable and
the amount can be reasonably estimated. The
28
Conwood companies are not participants in the State Settlement
Agreements. For more information related to historical and
expected settlement expenses and payments under the State
Settlement Agreements, see Litigation
Affecting the Cigarette Industry Health-Care Cost
Recovery Cases State Settlement Agreements and
State Settlement Agreements
Enforcement and Validity in Item 8, note 14 to
consolidated financial statements.
Intangible
Assets
Intangible assets include goodwill, trademarks and other
intangibles. The determination of fair value involves
considerable estimates and judgment. For goodwill, the
determination of fair value of a reporting unit involves, among
other things, RAIs market capitalization, and application
of the income approach, which includes developing forecasts of
future cash flows and determining an appropriate discount rate.
If goodwill impairment is implied, the fair values of individual
assets and liabilities, including unrecorded intangibles, must
be determined. RAI believes it has based its goodwill impairment
testing on reasonable estimates and assumptions, and during the
annual testing in the fourth quarter of 2009, the estimated fair
value of each of RAIs reporting units was substantially in
excess of its respective carrying value.
Trademarks and other intangible assets with indefinite lives
also are tested for impairment annually, in the fourth quarter.
The aggregate fair value of RAIs operating units
trademarks and other intangible assets was substantially in
excess of their aggregate carrying value. However, the
individual fair value of six indefinite-lived trademarks was
less than 15% in excess of their respective carrying values. The
aggregate carrying value of these six trademarks was
$561 million at December 31, 2009.
The methodology used to determine the fair value of trademarks
includes assumptions with inherent uncertainty, including
projected sales volumes and related projected revenues,
long-term growth rates, royalty rates that a market participant
might assume and judgments regarding the factors to develop an
applied discount rate.
The carrying value of these six trademarks are at risk of
impairment if future projected revenues or long-term growth
rates are lower than those currently projected, or if factors
used in the development of a discount rate result in the
application of a higher discount rate.
Goodwill, all trademarks and other intangible assets are tested
more frequently if events and circumstances indicate that the
asset might be impaired. The carrying value of these intangible
assets could be impaired if a significant adverse change in the
use, life, or brand strategy of the asset is determined, or if a
significant adverse change in the legal and regulatory
environment, business or competitive climate occurs that would
adversely impact the asset. See Item 8, note 3 to
consolidated financial statements for a discussion of the
impairment charges.
Fair
Value Measurement
RAI determines fair value of assets and liabilities using a fair
value hierarchy that distinguishes between market participant
assumptions developed based on market data obtained from sources
independent of the reporting entity, and the reporting
entitys own assumptions about market participant
assumptions developed based on the best information available in
the circumstances.
Fair value is the price that would be received to sell an asset
or paid to transfer a liability in an orderly transaction
between market participants at the measurement date, essentially
an exit price. The levels of the fair value hierarchy are:
Level 1: inputs are quoted prices, unadjusted, in active
markets for identical assets or liabilities that the reporting
entity has the ability to access at the measurement date.
Level 2: inputs are other than quoted prices included
within Level 1 that are observable for the asset or
liability, either directly or indirectly. A Level 2 input
must be observable for substantially the full term of the asset
or liability.
Level 3: inputs are unobservable and reflect the reporting
entitys own assumptions about the assumptions that market
participants would use in pricing the asset or liability.
29
Investments
Marketable securities are classified as
available-for-sale
and are carried at fair value, with related unrealized gains and
losses deemed temporarily impaired reported, net of tax, as
accumulated other comprehensive loss. All losses deemed to be
other than temporarily impaired are recorded in earnings. As of
December 31, 2009, RAI held investments primarily in money
market funds, auction rate securities, a mortgage-backed
security and a marketable equity security. Certain money market
funds are classified as short-term investments due to the
liquidity restrictions by the fund managers preventing immediate
withdrawal.
Adverse changes in financial markets caused the auction rate
securities and the mortgage-backed security to revalue lower
than carrying value and become less liquid. The funds associated
with the auction rate securities and the mortgage-backed
security will not be accessible until a successful auction
occurs or a buyer is found. These investments are evaluated on a
quarterly basis to determine if a credit loss has been incurred
and the investment is other than temporarily impaired. For these
investments, RAI uses assumptions about future cash flows and
risk-adjusted discount rates to determine fair value. To assess
credit losses, RAI uses historical default rates, debt ratings,
credit default swap spreads and recovery rates to determine if
credit losses have been incurred. RAI has the intent and ability
to hold these investments for a period of time sufficient to
allow for the recovery in market value.
Pension
and Postretirement Benefits
RAI and certain of its subsidiaries sponsor a number of
non-contributory defined benefit pension plans covering most of
their employees, and also provide certain health and life
insurance benefits for most of their retired employees and their
dependents. These benefits are generally no longer provided to
employees hired on or after January 1, 2004. For additional
information relating to pension and postretirement benefits, see
Item 8, note 17 to consolidated financial statements.
Because pension and other postretirement obligations ultimately
will be settled in future periods, the determination of annual
expense and liabilities is subject to estimates and assumptions.
RAI reviews these assumptions annually based on historic
experience and expected future trends or coincidental with a
major event and modifies them as needed. Demographic assumptions
such as termination of employment, mortality or retirement are
reviewed periodically as expectations change.
Gains or losses are annual changes in the amount of either the
benefit obligation or the market-related value of plan assets
resulting from experience different from that assumed or from
changes in assumptions. The minimum amortization of unrecognized
gains or losses, is included in pension expense. Prior service
costs, which are changes in benefit obligations due to plan
amendments, are amortized on a straight-line basis over the
average remaining service period for active employees, or
average remaining life expectancies for inactive employees if
most of the plan obligations are due to inactive employees.
The minimum amortization of unrecognized gains or losses is also
included in the postretirement benefit expense. Prior service
costs, which are changes in benefit obligations due to plan
amendments, are amortized on a straight-line basis over the
service to expected full eligibility age for active employees,
or average remaining life expectancies for inactive employees if
most of the plan obligations are due to inactive employees.
Differences between actual results and actuarial assumptions are
accumulated and amortized over future periods. In recent years,
actual results have varied significantly from actuarial
assumptions. In particular, pension and postretirement assets
have decreased due to significant decreases in fair value. These
changes, especially during 2008, have resulted in an increase in
charges to other comprehensive loss and increased pension
expense. These changes are expected to result in an increase in
pension and postretirement expense in future years. The Pension
Protection Act may require additional cash funding of the
pension obligations in the future.
30
The most critical assumptions and their sensitivity to change
are presented below:
Assumed asset return and discount rates have a significant
effect on the amounts reported for the benefit plans. A
one-percentage-point change in assumed discount rate for the
pension plans and other postretirement plans would have had the
following effects:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1-Percentage Point
|
|
1-Percentage Point
|
|
|
Increase
|
|
Decrease
|
|
|
Pension
|
|
Postretirement
|
|
Pension
|
|
Postretirement
|
|
|
Plans
|
|
Plans
|
|
Plans
|
|
Plans
|
|
Effect on 2009 net periodic benefit cost
|
|
$
|
(15
|
)
|
|
$
|
(6
|
)
|
|
$
|
32
|
|
|
$
|
6
|
|
Effect on December 31, 2009, projected benefit obligation
and accumulated postretirement benefit obligation
|
|
|
(489
|
)
|
|
|
(115
|
)
|
|
|
586
|
|
|
|
136
|
|
A one-percentage point change in assumed asset return would have
had the following effects:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1-Percentage Point
|
|
1-Percentage Point
|
|
|
Increase
|
|
Decrease
|
|
|
Pension
|
|
Postretirement
|
|
Pension
|
|
Postretirement
|
|
|
Plans
|
|
Plans
|
|
Plans
|
|
Plans
|
|
Effect on 2009 net periodic benefit cost
|
|
$
|
(41
|
)
|
|
$
|
(3
|
)
|
|
$
|
41
|
|
|
$
|
3
|
|
Income
Taxes
Tax law requires certain items to be excluded or included in
taxable income at different times than is required for book
reporting purposes. These differences may be permanent or
temporary in nature.
RAI determines its annual effective income tax rate based on
forecasted pre-tax book income and forecasted permanent book and
tax differences. The rate is established at the beginning of the
year and is evaluated on a quarterly basis. Any changes to the
forecasted information may cause the effective rate to be
adjusted. Additional tax, interest and penalties associated with
uncertain tax positions are recognized in tax expense on a
quarterly basis.
To the extent that any book and tax differences are temporary in
nature, that is, the book realization will occur in a different
period than the tax realization, a deferred tax asset or
liability is established. To the extent that a deferred tax
asset is created, management evaluates RAIs ability to
realize this asset. Management currently believes it is more
likely than not that the deferred tax assets recorded in
RAIs consolidated balance sheet will be realized. To the
extent a deferred tax liability is established, it is recorded,
tracked and, once it becomes currently due and payable, paid to
the taxing authorities.
The financial statements reflect managements best estimate
of RAIs current and deferred tax liabilities and assets.
Future events, including but not limited to, additional
resolutions with taxing authorities could have an impact on
RAIs current estimate of tax liabilities, realization of
tax assets and upon RAIs effective income tax rate.
Recently
Adopted Accounting Pronouncements
For information relating to recently adopted accounting
guidance, see Item 8, note 1 to consolidated financial
statements.
31
Results
of Operations
2009
Compared with 2008
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For the Twelve Months Ended December 31,
|
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
% Change
|
|
|
Net
sales:(1)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
RJR Tobacco
|
|
$
|
7,334
|
|
|
$
|
7,755
|
|
|
|
(5.4
|
)%
|
Conwood
|
|
|
673
|
|
|
|
723
|
|
|
|
(6.9
|
)%
|
All other
|
|
|
412
|
|
|
|
367
|
|
|
|
12.3
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net sales
|
|
|
8,419
|
|
|
|
8,845
|
|
|
|
(4.8
|
)%
|
Cost of products
sold(1)(2)
|
|
|
4,485
|
|
|
|
4,863
|
|
|
|
(7.8
|
)%
|
Selling, general and administrative expenses
|
|
|
1,508
|
|
|
|
1,500
|
|
|
|
0.5
|
%
|
Amortization expense
|
|
|
28
|
|
|
|
22
|
|
|
|
27.3
|
%
|
Restructuring charge
|
|
|
56
|
|
|
|
90
|
|
|
|
(37.8
|
)%
|
Trademark impairment charges
|
|
|
567
|
|
|
|
318
|
|
|
|
78.3
|
%
|
Operating income:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
RJR Tobacco
|
|
|
1,487
|
|
|
|
1,805
|
|
|
|
(17.6
|
)%
|
Conwood
|
|
|
276
|
|
|
|
232
|
|
|
|
19.0
|
%
|
All other
|
|
|
112
|
|
|
|
104
|
|
|
|
7.7
|
%
|
Corporate expense
|
|
|
(100
|
)
|
|
|
(89
|
)
|
|
|
12.4
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
1,775
|
|
|
$
|
2,052
|
|
|
|
(13.5
|
)%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Excludes excise taxes of: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
RJR Tobacco
|
|
$
|
3,532
|
|
|
$
|
1,689
|
|
Conwood
|
|
|
124
|
|
|
|
20
|
|
All other
|
|
|
271
|
|
|
|
181
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
3,927
|
|
|
$
|
1,890
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(2) |
|
See below for further information related to State Settlement
Agreements and federal tobacco buyout expense included in cost
of products sold. |
32
RJR
Tobacco
Net
Sales
Domestic cigarette shipment volume, in billions of units for RJR
Tobacco and the industry, were as
follows(1):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For the Twelve Months Ended
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
% Change
|
|
|
Growth brands:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CAMEL excluding non-filter
|
|
|
21.2
|
|
|
|
23.3
|
|
|
|
(9.2
|
)%
|
PALL MALL
|
|
|
14.6
|
|
|
|
8.6
|
|
|
|
70.9
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
35.8
|
|
|
|
31.8
|
|
|
|
12.3
|
%
|
Support brands
|
|
|
37.9
|
|
|
|
46.6
|
|
|
|
(18.7
|
)%
|
Non-support brands
|
|
|
8.0
|
|
|
|
11.0
|
|
|
|
(27.2
|
)%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total domestic
|
|
|
81.7
|
|
|
|
89.5
|
|
|
|
(8.7
|
)%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total premium
|
|
|
48.1
|
|
|
|
55.9
|
|
|
|
(13.9
|
)%
|
Total value
|
|
|
33.5
|
|
|
|
33.5
|
|
|
|
(0.1
|
)%
|
Premium/Total mix
|
|
|
59.0
|
%
|
|
|
62.5
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
Industry(2):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Premium
|
|
|
222.6
|
|
|
|
251.1
|
|
|
|
(11.3
|
)%
|
Value
|
|
|
93.1
|
|
|
|
94.2
|
|
|
|
(1.2
|
)%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total domestic
|
|
|
315.7
|
|
|
|
345.3
|
|
|
|
(8.6
|
)%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Premium/Total mix
|
|
|
70.5
|
%
|
|
|
72.7
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Amounts presented in this table are rounded on an individual
basis and, accordingly, may not sum on an aggregate basis.
Percentages are calculated on unrounded numbers. |
|
(2) |
|
Based on information from MSAi. All amounts reflect the current
methodology. |
RJR Tobaccos net sales are dependent upon its cigarette
shipment volume in a declining market, premium versus
value-brand mix and list pricing, offset by promotional
spending, trade incentives and federal excise taxes. RJR Tobacco
believes the federal excise tax increase, effective
April 1, 2009, has had, and will continue to have, a
significant and adverse impact on cigarette sales volume. RJR
Tobacco also believes its consumers are more price-sensitive
than consumers of competing brands and, therefore, are more
negatively affected by an increase in the federal excise tax and
by the current adverse economic environment.
RJR Tobaccos net sales for the year ended
December 31, 2009, decreased $421 million, or 5.4%,
from the year ended December 31, 2008, driven by
$566 million attributable to lower cigarette volume. RJR
Tobaccos decreases in net sales and cigarette shipment
volume primarily reflect a continued decline in consumption,
partially offset by the recent price increase resulting from the
increase in federal excise tax. RJR Tobaccos total
domestic cigarette shipment volume decreased 8.7% in 2009
compared with 2008. Industry cigarette shipment volume for 2009
was down 8.6% compared with 2008. RJR Tobaccos and
industry cigarette shipment volume declines for 2009 are higher
than prior years as a result of the increase in the federal
excise tax.
33
The shares of RJR Tobaccos brands as a percentage of total
share of U.S. retail cigarette sales according to
data(1)
from IRI/Capstone, were as
follows(2)(3):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For the Twelve Months Ended
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Share Point
|
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
Change
|
|
|
Growth brands:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CAMEL excluding non-filter
|
|
|
7.5
|
%
|
|
|
7.7
|
%
|
|
|
(0.1
|
)
|
PALL MALL
|
|
|
4.8
|
%
|
|
|
2.7
|
%
|
|
|
2.1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total growth brands
|
|
|
12.3
|
%
|
|
|
10.4
|
%
|
|
|
1.9
|
|
Support brands
|
|
|
13.1
|
%
|
|
|
14.6
|
%
|
|
|
(1.5
|
)
|
Non-support brands
|
|
|
2.9
|
%
|
|
|
3.5
|
%
|
|
|
(0.6
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total domestic
|
|
|
28.3
|
%
|
|
|
28.4
|
%
|
|
|
(0.1
|
)
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Retail share of U.S. cigarette sales data is included in this
document because it is used by RJR Tobacco primarily as an
indicator of the relative performance of industry participants,
and brands and market trends. You should not rely on the market
share data reported by IRI/Capstone as being a precise
measurement of actual market share because IRI/Capstone is not
able to effectively track all volume. Moreover, you should be
aware that in a product market experiencing overall declining
consumption, a particular product can experience increasing
market share relative to competing products, yet still be
subject to declining consumption volumes. |
|
(2) |
|
Amounts presented in this table are rounded on an individual
basis and, accordingly, may not sum on an aggregate basis. |
|
(3) |
|
In 2009, at the request of RJR Tobacco, the IRI/Capstone model
was revised to better reflect actual retail sales. All data
reflects the new methodology. |
The retail share of market of CAMELs filtered styles
decreased 0.1 share points in 2009 compared with 2008.
CAMEL Crush has captured 0.7 share points as of
December 31, 2009, as the success of this style continues
to be a key driver in the growing menthol category. RJR Tobacco
expanded the use of the capsule technology found in CAMEL Crush
to CAMELs core menthol styles beginning in third quarter
of 2009, giving adult smokers the choice between two levels of
menthol. In the first quarter of 2010, RJR Tobacco will
introduce new packaging for these styles to raise consumer
awareness and trial and to strengthen growth in the menthol
category.
CAMEL Snus was expanded nationally in the first quarter of 2009,
and as of December 31, 2009, gained market share of
0.3 percent on a cigarette equivalent basis that assumes a
can of snus is equal to a pack of cigarettes. Two new styles of
CAMEL Snus were launched in limited markets in the third quarter
of 2009.
CAMEL Orbs were launched in three lead markets during the first
quarter of 2009, and CAMEL Sticks and Strips were launched in
those lead markets in the third quarter of 2009. RJR Tobacco
continues to gain insight on ways to improve the products and
the packaging of the products.
PALL MALLs market share increased 2.1 share points in
2009 compared with 2008. PALL MALLs growth is believed to
be the result of adult consumers switching brands seeking
greater value. PALL MALL, positioned as a product that offers a
longer-lasting cigarette at a value price, has retained a high
percentage of adult smokers who try the brand.
The combined share of market of RJR Tobaccos growth brands
during 2009 showed improvement over 2008.
Operating
Income
RJR Tobaccos operating income for the year ended
December 31, 2009, decreased $318 million to
$1,487 million from $1,805 million for the year ended
December 31, 2008. A trademark impairment charge of
$377 million was recorded in the first quarter of 2009 as
the result of impairment testing to reflect the forecasted sales
impact due to the increase in the federal excise tax. An
additional trademark impairment charge of $114 million was
recorded in the fourth quarter of 2009 as the result of annual
impairment testing of brand
34
trademarks. During 2008, RJR Tobacco recorded trademark
impairment charges of $176 million. The impairment charges
were based on the excess of each brands carrying value
over its fair value using the present value of estimated future
cash flows assuming a discount rate of 10.5%.
RJR Tobaccos operating income was unfavorably impacted by
lower cigarette volume, higher pension expense and higher legal
expense. Higher pricing, lower promotional spending and
productivity gains resulting from the 2008 restructuring
partially offset the unfavorability.
In December 2009, RJR Tobacco announced the elimination of
approximately 400 full-time production positions. These
positions were selected from employees who volunteered to be
considered for job elimination. The job eliminations are
expected to be substantially completed by December 31, 2010.
Under existing benefit plans, $48 million of
severance-related cash benefits and $8 million of non-cash
pension-related benefits comprised a restructuring charge of
$56 million. None of the cash portion of the charge was
paid during 2009. The cash benefits are expected to be
substantially paid by December 31, 2011. Cost savings
related to the restructuring are expected to be $17 million
in 2010 and increasing to approximately $30 million in 2011
and each year thereafter.
RJR Tobaccos State Settlement Agreements and federal
tobacco buyout expenses, included in cost of products sold, are
detailed in the schedule below:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For the Twelve Months Ended December 31,
|
|
|
2009
|
|
2008
|
|
Settlements
|
|
$
|
2,490
|
|
|
$
|
2,664
|
|
Federal tobacco quota buyout
|
|
$
|
231
|
|
|
$
|
240
|
|
Expenses under the State Settlement Agreements are expected to
be approximately $2.5 billion in 2010, subject to
adjustment for changes in volume and other factors, and expense
for the federal tobacco quota buyout is expected to be
approximately $230 million to $260 million in 2010.
For additional information, see Litigation
Affecting the Cigarette Industry Health-Care Cost
Recovery Cases State Settlement Agreements in
Item 8, note 14 to consolidated financial statements.
Selling, general and administrative expenses include the costs
of litigating and administering product liability claims, as
well as other legal expenses. For the years ended
December 31, 2009 and 2008, RJR Tobaccos product
liability defense costs were $123 million and
$96 million, respectively. The increase in product
liability defense costs in 2009 compared with 2008 is due
primarily to the increase in Engle Progeny cases. For
more information, see Individual Smoking and
Health Cases Engle Progeny Cases in
Item 8, note 14 to consolidated financial statements.
Product liability cases generally include the
following types of smoking and health related cases:
|
|
|
|
|
Individual Smoking and Health;
|
|
|
|
West Virginia IPIC;
|
|
|
|
Engle Progeny;
|
|
|
|
Broin II;
|
|
|
|
Class Actions; and
|
|
|
|
Health-Care Cost Recovery Claims.
|
Product liability defense costs include the
following items:
|
|
|
|
|
direct and indirect compensation, fees and related costs and
expenses for internal legal and related administrative staff
administering product liability claims;
|
|
|
|
fees and cost reimbursements paid to outside attorneys;
|
35
|
|
|
|
|
direct and indirect payments to third party vendors for
litigation support activities;
|
|
|
|
expert witness costs and fees; and
|
|
|
|
payments to fund legal defense costs for the now dissolved
Council for Tobacco Research U.S.A.
|
Numerous factors affect product liability defense costs. The
most important factors are the number of cases pending and the
number of cases in trial or in preparation for trial, that is,
with active discovery and motions practice. See
Litigation Affecting the Cigarette
Industry Overview in Item 8, note 14
to consolidated financial statements for detailed information
regarding the number and type of cases pending, and
Litigation Affecting the Cigarette Industry
Scheduled Trials in Item 8, note 14
to consolidated financial statements for detailed information
regarding the number and nature of cases in trial and scheduled
for trial through December 31, 2010.
RJR Tobacco expects that the factors described above will
continue to have the primary impact on its product liability
defense costs in the future. Given the increased level of
activity in RJR Tobaccos pending cases and possible new
cases, including the increased number of cases in trial and
scheduled for trial, particularly with respect to the Engle
Progeny cases, RJR Tobaccos product liability defense
costs have increased in 2009 compared with the most recent
years. See Litigation Affecting the Cigarette
Industry Engle Progeny Cases and
Litigation Affecting the Cigarette
Industry Class Action Suits
Engle Case in Item 8, note 14 to
consolidated financial statements for additional information. In
addition, it is possible that adverse developments in the
factors discussed above, as well as other circumstances beyond
the control of RJR Tobacco, could have a material adverse effect
on the consolidated results of operations, cash flows or
financial position of RAI or its subsidiaries. Those other
circumstances beyond the control of RJR Tobacco include the
results of present and future trials and appeals, and the
development of possible new theories of liability by plaintiffs
and their counsel.
Conwood
Net
Sales
The moist snuff shipment volume, in millions of cans, for
Conwood was as
follows(1):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For the Twelve Months Ended
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
% Change
|
|
|
|
|
|
KODIAK
|
|
|
47.8
|
|
|
|
51.0
|
|
|
|
(6.3
|
)%
|
|
|
|
|
GRIZZLY
|
|
|
304.6
|
|
|
|
279.6
|
|
|
|
8.9
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
Other
|
|
|
4.1
|
|
|
|
4.5
|
|
|
|
(9.9
|
)%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total moist snuff
|
|
|
356.5
|
|
|
|
335.2
|
|
|
|
6.4
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Amounts presented in this table are rounded on an individual
basis and, accordingly, may not sum on an aggregate basis.
Percentages are calculated on unrounded numbers. |
Conwoods net sales for the year ended December 31,
2009, were $673 million compared with $723 million for
the year ended December 31, 2008. GRIZZLY, Conwoods
leading price-value moist snuff brand, continues to grow moist
snuff sales and was the leading moist snuff brand in the United
States as of December 31, 2009. KODIAK, Conwoods
leading premium moist snuff brand, reduced pricing at the end of
the first quarter of 2009 to remain competitive. This price
reduction and volume decline on KODIAK, and a delay in the price
increase on GRIZZLY to cover the additional federal excise tax,
were the primary drivers of the decrease in sales during 2009
compared with 2008. During 2009, in addition to aggressive
promotional spending, pricing was significantly reduced by a
competitor on its premium and certain price-value brands.
36
The Conwood shares of the moist snuff category as a percentage
of total share of U.S. shipments of moist snuff, according
to distributor reported
data(1)
processed by MSAi, were as
follows(2):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For the Twelve Months Ended
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Share
|
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
Point Change
|
|
|
KODIAK
|
|
|
3.8
|
%
|
|
|
4.0
|
%
|
|
|
(0.2
|
)
|
GRIZZLY
|
|
|
25.3
|
%
|
|
|
23.2
|
%
|
|
|
2.0
|
|
Other
|
|
|
0.3
|
%
|
|
|
0.4
|
%
|
|
|
(0.1
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total moist snuff
|
|
|
29.4
|
%
|
|
|
27.6
|
%
|
|
|
1.8
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Distributor
shipments-to-retail
share of U.S. moist snuff is included in this document because
it is used by Conwood primarily as an indicator of the relative
performance of industry participants, and brands and market
trends. You should not rely on the market share data reported by
distributors and processed by MSAi as being a precise
measurement of actual market share because this distributor data
set is not able to effectively track all volume. |
|
(2) |
|
Amounts presented in this table are rounded on an individual
basis and, accordingly, may not sum on an aggregate basis. |
Moist snuff has been the key driver to Conwoods overall
growth and profitability within the U.S. smokeless tobacco
market. Moist snuff accounted for approximately 71% of
Conwoods revenue in 2009 and approximately 66% in 2008.
While industry moist snuff volume grew over 4% in 2009,
Conwoods moist snuff volume grew over 6% in 2009,
attributable to its innovation, product development and brand
building. Continuing with innovation and brand building, Conwood
will feature embossed metal lids on KODIAK and GRIZZLY brands in
2010.
GRIZZLY had a 25.3% share of moist snuff shipments in 2009, an
increase of 2.0 share points from 2008, due in part to the
success of new GRIZZLY styles. GRIZZLY launched mint and
straight pouch styles in the first quarter of 2009 and GRIZZLY
snuff pouches in the fourth quarter of 2009. Pouches, in the
industry, have grown over 25% in 2009 and now account for nearly
8% of moist snuff sales. GRIZZLYs pouch styles generated
approximately 60% of the pouch growth in the industry during
2009. Also being launched in the first quarter of 2010 is
GRIZZLY 1900 Long Cut, a natural product with a traditional long
cut.
The shipment share of KODIAK declined 0.2 share points in
2009 compared with 2008 due to competitive promotional activity
and the brands core markets being burdened by high tobacco
taxes and the current economic recession. KODIAKs price
reduction during the first quarter of 2009 aligned KODIAK with
other premium brands, making it more competitive.
Conwood launched CAMEL Dip, a premium moist snuff, in two
styles, Wintergreen Wide Cut and Dark Milled, in lead markets
during the second quarter of 2009. CAMEL Dip will be launched in
ten additional markets in the first quarter of 2010. CAMEL
Wintergreen pouches will be launched in the first quarter of
2010.
Operating
Income
Conwoods operating income for the year ended
December 31, 2009, increased to $276 million from
$232 million, primarily impacted by a trademark impairment
charge of $76 million in 2009 compared with a trademark
impairment charge of $142 million in 2008. Additionally,
lower margins on KODIAK and higher promotional spending due to
product introductions, tax increases and competitive activity
were partially offset by increases in volume and pricing by
GRIZZLY.
The 2009 impairment charge was the result of impairment testing
triggered by certain price reductions and the anticipated sales
impact due to the increase in the federal excise tax effective
April 1, 2009. This impairment occurred on several of
Conwoods brands, including KODIAK, driven by the decrease
in its list price to meet competition, as well as the federal
excise tax impact on other brands. The impairment charge was
based on the excess of each brands carrying value over its
fair value using the present value of estimated future cash
flows assuming a discount rate of 10.5%.
37
All
Other
All Other sales for the year ended December 31, 2009, were
favorably impacted by the growth of Santa Fes NATURAL
AMERICAN SPIRIT brand. Operating income for the 2009 year
increased as a result of higher sales in 2009 as compared with
2008.
RAI
Consolidated
Interest and debt expense was $251 million for the
year ended December 31, 2009, a decrease of
$24 million over the comparable prior year. This decrease
was primarily due to lower effective interest rates in 2009 as
compared with 2008 coupled with lower debt balances during 2009.
Interest income was $19 million for the year ended
December 31, 2009, a decrease of $41 million compared
with the year ended December 31, 2008. This decrease was
the result of investing at lower interest rates in 2009.
Gain on termination of joint venture of $328 million
in 2008 resulted from the termination of the Reynolds-Gallaher
International Sarl joint venture. See Item 8, note 5
to consolidated financial statements for additional information
related to the joint venture termination.
Other expense net was $9 million for the year ended
December 31, 2009, a decrease of $28 million compared
with the year ended December 31, 2008. Impairments on
investments deemed
other-than-temporary
of $35 million were expensed in 2008.
Provision for income taxes was $572 million, or an
effective rate of 37.3%, for the year ended December 31,
2009, compared with $790 million, or an effective rate of
37.1%, for the year ended December 31, 2008. The effective
tax rate for 2009 was unfavorably impacted by the increases in
unrecognized income tax benefits and increases in tax
attributable to accumulated and undistributed foreign earnings.
The 2008 effective rate was favorably impacted by a lower tax
rate related to the gain on the termination of the
Reynolds-Gallaher International Sarl joint venture, but was
offset by unfavorability related to tax reserves and
U.S. taxes recorded on foreign earnings. The effective tax
rates exceeded the federal statutory rate of 35% primarily due
to the impact of state taxes and certain non-deductible items,
offset by the domestic production activities deduction of the
American Jobs Creation Act, enacted on October 22, 2004.
RAI expects its effective tax rate to be approximately 38% in
2010.
38
2008
Compared with 2007
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For the Twelve Months Ended December 31,
|
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
% Change
|
|
|
Net
sales:(1)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
RJR Tobacco
|
|
$
|
7,755
|
|
|
$
|
8,022
|
|
|
|
(3.3
|
)%
|
Conwood
|
|
|
723
|
|
|
|
670
|
|
|
|
7.9
|
%
|
All other
|
|
|
367
|
|
|
|
331
|
|
|
|
10.9
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net sales
|
|
|
8,845
|
|
|
|
9,023
|
|
|
|
(2.0
|
)%
|
Cost of products
sold(1)(2)
|
|
|
4,863
|
|
|
|
4,960
|
|
|
|
(2.0
|
)%
|
Selling, general and administrative expenses
|
|
|
1,500
|
|
|
|
1,687
|
|
|
|
(11.1
|
)%
|
Amortization expense
|
|
|
22
|
|
|
|
23
|
|
|
|
(4.3
|
)%
|
Restructuring charge
|
|
|
90
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NM(3
|
)
|
Trademark impairment charges
|
|
|
318
|
|
|
|
65
|
|
|
|
NM(3
|
)
|
Operating income:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
RJR Tobacco
|
|
|
1,805
|
|
|
|
1,988
|
|
|
|
(9.2
|
)%
|
Conwood
|
|
|
232
|
|
|
|
312
|
|
|
|
(25.6
|
)%
|
All other
|
|
|
104
|
|
|
|
94
|
|
|
|
10.6
|
%
|
Corporate expense
|
|
|
(89
|
)
|
|
|
(106
|
)
|
|
|
(16.0
|
)%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
2,052
|
|
|
$
|
2,288
|
|
|
|
(10.3
|
)%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Excludes excise taxes of: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
RJR Tobacco
|
|
$
|
1,689
|
|
|
$
|
1,847
|
|
Conwood
|
|
|
20
|
|
|
|
18
|
|
All other
|
|
|
181
|
|
|
|
161
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
1,890
|
|
|
$
|
2,026
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(2) |
|
See below for further information related to State Settlement
Agreements and federal tobacco buyout expense included in cost
of products sold. |
|
(3) |
|
Percentage change not meaningful. |
In 2008, RAI and RJR Tobacco announced changes in their
organizational structures to streamline non-core business
processes and programs in order to allocate additional resources
to strategic growth initiatives. The reorganizations resulted in
the elimination of approximately 600 full-time jobs, which
were substantially completed by December 31, 2009.
Under existing benefit plans, $83 million of
severance-related cash benefits and $7 million of non-cash
pension-related benefits comprised a restructuring charge of
$90 million. Of this charge, $81 million was recorded
in the RJR Tobacco segment. Of the cash portion of the charge,
$5 million was paid as of December 31, 2008. The cash
benefits are expected to be substantially paid by
December 31, 2010.
39
RJR
Tobacco
Net
Sales
Domestic cigarette shipment volume, in billions of units for RJR
Tobacco and the industry, were as
follows(1):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For the Twelve Months Ended December 31,
|
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
% Change
|
|
|
Growth brands:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CAMEL excluding non-filter
|
|
|
23.3
|
|
|
|
24.2
|
|
|
|
(3.8
|
)%
|
PALL MALL
|
|
|
8.6
|
|
|
|
7.1
|
|
|
|
20.8
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
31.8
|
|
|
|
31.3
|
|
|
|
1.7
|
%
|
Support brands
|
|
|
46.6
|
|
|
|
52.0
|
|
|
|
(10.3
|
)%
|
Non-support brands
|
|
|
11.0
|
|
|
|
14.3
|
|
|
|
(23.3
|
)%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total domestic
|
|
|
89.5
|
|
|
|
97.6
|
|
|
|
(8.4
|
)%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total premium
|
|
|
55.9
|
|
|
|
60.9
|
|
|
|
(8.2
|
)%
|
Total value
|
|
|
33.5
|
|
|
|
36.7
|
|
|
|
(8.7
|
)%
|
Premium/Total mix
|
|
|
62.5
|
%
|
|
|
62.4
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
Industry(2):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Premium
|
|
|
251.1
|
|
|
|
259.9
|
|
|
|
(3.4
|
)%
|
Value
|
|
|
94.2
|
|
|
|
97.3
|
|
|
|
(3.1
|
)%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total domestic
|
|
|
345.3
|
|
|
|
357.2
|
|
|
|
(3.3
|
)%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Premium/Total mix
|
|
|
72.7
|
%
|
|
|
72.8
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Amounts presented in this table are rounded on an individual
basis and, accordingly, may not sum on an aggregate basis.
Percentages are calculated on unrounded numbers. |
|
(2) |
|
Based on information from MSAi. |
During 2008, RJR Tobacco selectively reduced the number of
products sold by discontinuing a number of low-margin and
non-core brands and styles to reduce complexity and improve
efficiency.
RJR Tobaccos net sales for the year ended
December 31, 2008, decreased $267 million, or 3.3%,
from the year ended December 31, 2007, driven by
$339 million attributable to lower volume, partially offset
by improved pricing, net of promotional spending. RJR
Tobaccos decreases in net sales and shipment volume
reflect intensified competitive activity in the first half of
2008, a decrease in consumption, wholesale inventory reductions,
and the impact of RJR Tobaccos selective brand and style
reduction. In addition, RJR Tobaccos consumers are
believed to be more price-sensitive than consumers of competing
brands and, therefore, are more negatively affected by the
current adverse economic pressures. RJR Tobaccos total
domestic shipment volume decreased 8.4% in 2008 compared with
2007. Industry shipment volume for 2008 was down 3.3% compared
with 2007.
The shares of RJR Tobaccos brands as a percentage of total
share of U.S. retail cigarette sales according to
data(1)
from IRI/Capstone, were as
follows(2)(3):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For the Twelve Months Ended December 31,
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Share Point
|
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
Change
|
|
|
Growth brands:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CAMEL excluding non-filter
|
|
|
8.0
|
%
|
|
|
7.8
|
%
|
|
|
0.3
|
|
PALL MALL
|
|
|
2.6
|
%
|
|
|
2.1
|
%
|
|
|
0.5
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total growth brands
|
|
|
10.7
|
%
|
|
|
9.9
|
%
|
|
|
0.8
|
|
Support brands
|
|
|
13.8
|
%
|
|
|
14.7
|
%
|
|
|
(0.9
|
)
|
Non-support brands
|
|
|
3.6
|
%
|
|
|
4.4
|
%
|
|
|
(0.8
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total domestic
|
|
|
28.1
|
%
|
|
|
29.0
|
%
|
|
|
(1.0
|
)
|
40
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Retail share of U.S. cigarette sales data is included in this
document because it is used by RJR Tobacco primarily as an
indicator of the relative performance of industry participants,
and brands and market trends. You should not rely on the market
share data reported by IRI/Capstone as being a precise
measurement of actual market share because IRI/Capstone is not
able to effectively track all volume. Moreover, you should be
aware that in a product market experiencing overall declining
consumption, a particular product can experience increasing
market share relative to competing products, yet still be
subject to declining consumption volumes. |
|
(2) |
|
Amounts presented in this table are rounded on an individual
basis and, accordingly, may not sum on an aggregate basis. |
|
(3) |
|
In 2009, at the request of RJR Tobacco, IRI/Capstone revised its
sampling model to better reflect the current retail environment.
Data provided herein reflects previously published data using
IRI/Capstones historical methodology. |
The retail share of market of CAMELs filtered styles
increased 0.3 share points in 2008 compared with 2007.
During the first half of 2008, CAMEL launched updated packaging
and smoother blends for its core styles. CAMEL also introduced
CAMEL Crush in lead markets during the first quarter of 2008.
CAMEL Crush was expanded nationally during the third quarter of
2008 and had a market share of 0.7 share points in the
fourth quarter of 2008.
CAMEL Snus expanded into a total of 17 markets in 2008.
Additionally, in October 2008, RJR Tobacco introduced CAMEL
Dissolvables that include CAMEL Orbs, Sticks and Strips.
PALL MALLs market share increased 0.5 share points in
2008 compared with 2007. PALL MALLs growth is believed to
be the result of the brands position as a product that
offers a longer-lasting cigarette at a value price. PALL MALL
introduced more stylish, round-corner packs in the second
quarter of 2008.
The combined share of market of RJR Tobaccos growth brands
during 2008 showed improvement over 2007. However, the decline
in share of support and non-support brands more than offset the
gains on the growth brands.
Operating
Income
RJR Tobaccos operating income for the year ended
December 31, 2008, decreased $183 million to
$1,805 million from $1,988 million for the year ended
December 31, 2007. In addition to a restructuring charge of
$81 million in the second half of 2008, the
reclassification of KOOL to a support brand from a growth brand
in the third quarter of 2008 triggered a non-cash trademark
impairment of $173 million. An additional impairment charge
of $3 million was recorded in the fourth quarter of 2008 as
the result of annual impairment testing of brand trademarks. In
2007, RJR Tobacco recorded a trademark impairment charge of
$33 million.
The trademark impairment charge and restructuring charge were
partially offset by higher pricing and improvements in
productivity. RJR Tobaccos operating income was also
negatively impacted by decreases in shipment volume due to
intensified competitive activity in the first half of 2008, a
decrease in consumption, wholesale inventory reductions, as well
as RJR Tobaccos selective style and brand reduction.
RJR Tobaccos State Settlement Agreements and federal
tobacco buyout expenses, included in cost of products sold, are
detailed in the schedule below:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For the Twelve Months Ended December 31,
|
|
|
2008
|
|
2007
|
|
Settlements
|
|
$
|
2,664
|
|
|
$
|
2,791
|
|
Federal tobacco quota buyout
|
|
$
|
240
|
|
|
$
|
247
|
|
Selling, general and administrative expenses include the costs
of litigating and administering product liability claims, as
well as other legal expenses. For the years ended
December 31, 2008 and 2007, RJR Tobaccos product
liability defense costs were $96 million and
$88 million, respectively.
41
Conwood
Net
Sales
The moist snuff shipment volume, in millions of cans, for
Conwood was as
follows(1):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For the Twelve Months Ended December 31,
|
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
% Change
|
|
|
KODIAK
|
|
|
51.0
|
|
|
|
53.2
|
|
|
|
(4.2
|
)%
|
GRIZZLY
|
|
|
279.6
|
|
|
|
237.0
|
|
|
|
18.0
|
%
|
Other
|
|
|
4.5
|
|
|
|
5.4
|
|
|
|
(16.1
|
)%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total moist snuff
|
|
|
335.2
|
|
|
|
295.6
|
|
|
|
13.4
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Amounts presented in this table are rounded on an individual
basis and, accordingly, may not sum on an aggregate basis.
Percentages are calculated on unrounded numbers. |
Conwoods net sales for the year ended December 31,
2008, were $723 million compared with $670 million for
the year ended December 31, 2007. Moist snuff sales
generated the increase over the prior-year period, led by
GRIZZLY.
The Conwood shares of the moist snuff category as a percentage
of total share of U.S. shipments of moist snuff, according
to distributor reported
data(1)
processed by MSAi, were as
follows(2):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For the Twelve Months Ended December 31,
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Share
|
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
Point Change
|
|
|
KODIAK
|
|
|
4.0
|
%
|
|
|
4.4
|
%
|
|
|
(0.4
|
)
|
GRIZZLY
|
|
|
23.2
|
%
|
|
|
21.1
|
%
|
|
|
2.2
|
|
Other
|
|
|
0.4
|
%
|
|
|
0.5
|
%
|
|
|
(0.1
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total moist snuff
|
|
|
27.6
|
%
|
|
|
26.0
|
%
|
|
|
1.7
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Distributor
shipments-to-retail
share of U.S. moist snuff is included in this document because
it is used by Conwood primarily as an indicator of the relative
performance of industry participants, and brands and market
trends. You should not rely on the market share data reported by
distributors and processed by MSAi as being a precise
measurement of actual market share because this distributor data
set is not able to effectively track all volume. |
|
(2) |
|
Amounts presented in this table are rounded on an individual
basis and, accordingly, may not sum on an aggregate basis. |
Moist snuff accounted for approximately 66% of Conwoods
revenue in 2008 and approximately 60% in 2007. Conwoods
key brands include KODIAK in the premium brand category and
GRIZZLY in the price-value brand category. Conwoods
U.S. moist snuff market share was 27.6% in 2008 and 26.0%
in 2007 based on distributor-reported data processed by MSAi,
for distributor shipments to retail. Although moist snuff volume
grew over 7% in 2008, Conwoods moist snuff volume grew
over 13% in 2008, attributable to its innovation, product
development and brand building.
GRIZZLY had a 23.2% share of moist snuff shipments in 2008, an
increase of 2.2 share points from 2007, despite further
narrowing of the price gap between premium brands and value
brands, such as GRIZZLY. In 2008, Conwood expanded nationally
the launch of two new GRIZZLY styles, GRIZZLY Wintergreen
Pouches and GRIZZLY Snuff, to build on the brands momentum
and aid in its share growth.
The shipment share of KODIAK declined 0.4 share points in
2008 compared with 2007 due to competitive promotional activity
and the brands core markets being burdened by high tobacco
taxes and the current economic recession.
42
Operating
Income
Conwoods operating income for the year ended
December 31, 2008, decreased to $232 million from
$312 million for 2007. This change is due to increased
price-value volume and higher pricing offset primarily by
trademark impairment. The annual impairment testing of
trademarks in the fourth quarter of 2008 resulted in a charge of
$142 million compared with $32 million in 2007. The
2008 impairment occurred primarily on KODIAK, which reflected
the demand shift from premium to price-value brands.
All
Other
All Other sales for the year ended December 31, 2008, were
favorably impacted by the growth of Santa Fes NATURAL
AMERICAN SPIRIT brand. Operating income for the 2008 year
increased as a result of lower marketing expenses in 2008 as
compared with 2007.
RAI
Consolidated
Gain on termination of joint venture of $328 million
in 2008 resulted from the termination of the
Reynolds-Gallaher
International Sarl joint venture. See Item 8, note 5
to consolidated financial statements for additional information
related to the joint venture termination.
Interest and debt expense was $275 million for the
year ended December 31, 2008, a decrease of
$63 million over the comparable prior year. This decrease
was primarily due to lower effective interest rates and lower
outstanding debt in 2008 as compared with 2007.
Interest income was $60 million for the year ended
December 31, 2008, a decrease of $74 million compared
with the year ended December 31, 2007. This decrease was
the result of investing available cash at lower interest rates
in 2008.
Other expense net was expense of $37 million for the
year ended December 31, 2008, an increase of
$26 million compared with the year ended December 31,
2007. Impairments on investments deemed
other-than-temporary
of $35 million were expensed in 2008.
Provision for income taxes was $790 million, or an
effective rate of 37.1%, for the year ended December 31,
2008, compared with $766 million, or an effective rate of
37.0%, for the year ended December 31, 2007. The 2008
provision was favorably impacted by a lower tax rate related to
the gain on the termination of the Reynolds-Gallaher
International Sarl joint venture, but was offset by
unfavorability related to tax reserves and U.S. taxes
recorded on foreign earnings. The effective tax rates exceeded
the federal statutory rate of 35% primarily due to the impact of
state taxes and certain non-deductible items, offset by the
domestic production activities deduction of the American Jobs
Creation Act, enacted on October 22, 2004.
Liquidity
and Financial Condition
Liquidity
At present, the principal sources of liquidity for RAIs
operating subsidiaries businesses and operating needs are
internally generated funds from their operations and
intercompany loans and advances, mainly from RAI and RJR. The
principal capital resources and sources of liquidity for RAI and
RJR, in turn, are proceeds from issuances of debt securities by
RAI and RJR and the RAI credit facility described below under
Borrowing Arrangements. Cash flows from
operating activities are believed to be sufficient for the
foreseeable future to enable the operating subsidiaries to meet
their obligations under the State Settlement Agreements, to fund
their capital expenditures and to make payments to RAI and RJR
that, when combined with RAIs and RJRs cash
balances, will enable RAI and RJR to make their required
debt-service payments, and enable RAI to pay dividends to its
shareholders.
The negative impact, if any, on the sources of liquidity that
could result from a decrease in demand for products due to
short-term inventory adjustments by wholesale and retail
distributors, changes in competitive pricing, accelerated
declines in consumption, particularly from increases in
regulation or excise taxes, or adverse impacts from financial
markets, cannot be predicted. RAI cannot predict its cash
requirements or those of its subsidiaries
43
related to any future settlements or judgments, including cash
required to be held in escrow or to bond any appeals, if
necessary, and RAI makes no assurance that it or its
subsidiaries will be able to meet all of those requirements.
RAI evaluated the liquidity of key suppliers and significant
customers throughout 2009. Where there were liquidity concerns
identified with key suppliers, contingency plans were developed.
To date, no business interruptions have occurred caused by key
supplier liquidity. No liquidity issues were identified
regarding significant customers.
As of December 31, 2009, RAI held investments primarily in
money market funds, auction rate securities, a mortgage-backed
security and a marketable equity security. Certain money market
funds are classified as short-term investments due to liquidity
restrictions by the fund managers preventing immediate
withdrawal. Given such restrictions, these funds will not be
available until the underlying investments mature or are sold.
Adverse changes in financial markets caused the auction rate
securities and the mortgage-backed security to revalue lower
than carrying value and become less liquid. The auction rate
securities and the mortgage-backed security will not become
liquid until a successful auction occurs or a buyer is found.
RAI intends, and has the ability, to hold these money market
funds, auction rate securities and the mortgage-backed security
for a period of time sufficient to allow for sale, redemption or
anticipated recovery in fair value. At December 31, 2009,
RAI considered the mortgage-backed security and the auction rate
securities to be temporarily impaired.
Contractual obligations as of December 31, 2009 were as
follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Payments Due by Period
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Less than 1
|
|
|
1-3 Years
|
|
|
4-5 Years
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
Year-2010
|
|
|
2011-2012
|
|
|
2013-2014
|
|
|
Thereafter
|
|
|
Long-term notes, exclusive of
interest(1)
|
|
$
|
4,210
|
|
|
$
|
300
|
|
|
$
|
850
|
|
|
$
|
685
|
|
|
$
|
2,375
|
|
Interest payments related to long-term
notes(1)
|
|
|
1,902
|
|
|
|
233
|
|
|
|
412
|
|
|
|
306
|
|
|
|
951
|
|
Operating
leases(2)
|
|
|
69
|
|
|
|
17
|
|
|
|
29
|
|
|
|
20
|
|
|
|
3
|
|
Non-qualified pension
obligations(3)
|
|
|
88
|
|
|
|
9
|
|
|
|
18
|
|
|
|
17
|
|
|
|
44
|
|
Postretirement benefit
obligations(3)
|
|
|
718
|
|
|
|
68
|
|
|
|
144
|
|
|
|
147
|
|
|
|
359
|
|
Qualified pension
funding(3)
|
|
|
300
|
|
|
|
300
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Purchase
obligations(4)
|
|
|
779
|
|
|
|
339
|
|
|
|
178
|
|
|
|
189
|
|
|
|
73
|
|
Other noncurrent
liabilities(5)
|
|
|
95
|
|
|
|
N/A
|
|
|
|
64
|
|
|
|
10
|
|
|
|
21
|
|
State Settlement Agreements
obligations(6)
|
|
|
13,300
|
|
|
|
2,500
|
|
|
|
5,400
|
|
|
|
5,400
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gross unrecognized tax
benefit(7)
|
|
|
94
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Federal tobacco buyout
obligations(8)
|
|
|
1,360
|
|
|
|
260
|
|
|
|
550
|
|
|
|
550
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total cash obligations
|
|
$
|
22,915
|
|
|
$
|
4,026
|
|
|
$
|
7,645
|
|
|
$
|
7,324
|
|
|
$
|
3,826
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
For more information about RAIs and RJRs long-term
notes, see Item 8, note 12 to consolidated financial
statements. |
|
(2) |
|
Operating lease obligations represent estimated lease payments
primarily related to office space, automobiles, warehouse space
and computer equipment. See Item 8, note 14 to
consolidated financial statements for additional information. |
|
(3) |
|
For more information about RAIs pension plans and
postretirement benefits, see Item 8, note 17 to
consolidated financial statements. Non-qualified pension and
postretirement benefit obligations captioned under
Thereafter include obligations during the next five
years only. These obligations are not reasonably estimable
beyond ten years. Qualified pension plan funding is based on the
Pension Protection Act and tax deductibility and is not
reasonably estimable beyond one year. |
|
(4) |
|
Purchase obligations primarily include commitments to acquire
tobacco leaf. Purchase orders for the purchase of other raw
materials and other goods and services are not included in the
table. RAIs operating subsidiaries are not able to
determine the aggregate amount of such purchase orders that
represent contractual obligations, as purchase orders typically
represent authorizations to purchase rather than binding
agreements. For purposes |
44
|
|
|
|
|
of this table, contractual obligations for the purchase of goods
or services are defined by RAIs operating subsidiaries as
agreements that are enforceable and legally binding that specify
all significant terms, including fixed or minimum quantities to
be purchased; fixed, minimum or variable price provisions; and
the approximate timing of the transaction. Purchase orders of
RAIs operating subsidiaries are based on current demand
expectations and are fulfilled by vendors within short time
horizons. RAIs operating subsidiaries do not have
significant non-cancelable agreements for the purchase of raw
materials or other goods or services specifying minimum
quantities or set prices that exceed our expected requirements.
RAIs operating subsidiaries also enter into contracts for
outsourced services; however, the obligations under these
contracts were generally not significant and the contracts
generally contain clauses allowing for the cancellation without
significant penalty. |
|
(5) |
|
Other noncurrent liabilities include primarily restructuring and
bonus compensation. Certain other noncurrent liabilities are
excluded from the table above, including RJRs liabilities
recorded in 1999 related to certain indemnification claims, for
which timing of payments are not estimable. For more information
about RJRs indemnification obligations, see Item 8,
note 14 to consolidated financial statements. |
|
(6) |
|
State Settlement Agreements obligation amounts in the aggregate
beyond five years are not meaningful as these are obligations
into perpetuity. For more information about the State Settlement
Agreements, see Item 8, note 14 to consolidated
financial statements. |
|
(7) |
|
For more information on gross unrecognized tax benefits, see
Item 8, note 10 to consolidated financial statements.
Due to inherent uncertainties regarding the timing of payment of
these amounts, RAI cannot reasonably estimate the payment period. |
|
(8) |
|
For more information about the tobacco buyout legislation, see
Governmental Activity below and
Item 8, note 14 to consolidated financial statements. |
Commitments as of December 31, 2009 were as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Commitment
|
|
|
|
Expiration Period
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Less than
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
1 Year
|
|
|
Standby letters of credit backed by revolving credit facility
|
|
$
|
15
|
|
|
$
|
15
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total commitments
|
|
$
|
15
|
|
|
$
|
15
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash
Flows
2009
Compared with 2008
Net cash flows from operating activities were
$1,454 million in 2009, compared with $1,315 million
in 2008. This change was driven by the partial retention of the
2009 MSA payment and lower taxes paid, partially offset by
higher pension payments, higher bonds posted and lower interest
received in 2009.
Net cash flows used in investing activities was
$123 million in 2009, compared with net cash flows from
investing activities of $278 million for the prior year.
This change was primarily driven by lower proceeds from
short-term investments as well as higher capital expenditures
and an acquisition in 2009 compared with the 2008 proceeds from
the termination of the joint venture.
Net cash flows used in financing activities were
$1,192 million in 2009, compared with $1,206 million
in 2008. Lower common stock purchases in 2009 were nearly offset
by long-term debt repaid in 2009.
2008
Compared with 2007
Net cash flows from operating activities were
$1,315 million in 2008, compared with $1,331 million
in 2007. This change was driven primarily by higher State
Settlement Agreement and tax payments, partially offset by lower
pension funding in 2008.
Net cash flows from investing activities were $278 million
in 2008, compared with $763 million for the prior year.
This change was primarily driven by higher short-term investing
net proceeds in 2007 that more than offset the proceeds received
in 2008 as a result of the termination of the joint venture.
45
Net cash flows used in financing activities were
$1,206 million in 2008, compared with $1,312 million
in 2007. This change was due to prior-year repayment of
long-term debt, offset by higher stock repurchases and higher
dividends per share in 2008.
Borrowing
Arrangements
As of December 31, 2009, RAIs total consolidated debt
consisted of RAI notes in the aggregate principal amount of
$4.1 billion, with maturity dates ranging from 2010 to
2037, and RJR notes in the aggregate principal amount of
$118 million, with maturity dates ranging from 2012 to
2015. See Item 8, note 12 to consolidated financial
statements for more information on these notes.
RAI and RJR use interest rate swaps to manage interest rate risk
on a portion of their debt obligations. On December 31,
2008, interest rate swaps existed on $1.6 billion of
fixed-rate notes. When entered into, these swaps were designated
as hedges of underlying exposures. On January 6, 2009, RAI
and RJR entered into offsetting interest rate swap agreements in
the notional amount of $1.5 billion with maturity dates
ranging from June 1, 2012 to June 15, 2017. These
swaps were entered into with the same financial institution that
holds a notional amount of $1.5 billion of current swaps
and have a technical right of offset. The future cash flows,
established as a result of entering into the January 6,
2009, swaps, total $321 million, and will be amortized and
effectively reduce net interest costs over the remaining life of
the notes. Concurrent with entering the swap agreements on
January 6, 2009, RAI de-designated the current swaps as
fair value hedges.
On January 7, 2009, RAI and RJR terminated an interest rate
swap agreement in the notional amount of $100 million with
a maturity date of June 1, 2012. The resulting gain of
approximately $12 million will be amortized to effectively
reduce interest expense over the remaining life of the notes.
As a result of these actions, RAI and RJR have effectively
converted $1.6 billion of fixed-rate notes swapped to a
variable rate of interest, to a fixed rate of interest of
approximately 4.0%.
At their option, RAI and RJR, as applicable, may redeem any or
all of their outstanding fixed-rate notes, in whole or in part
at any time, subject to the payment of a make-whole premium.
RAIs floating rate notes are redeemable at par on any
interest payment date after December 15, 2008.
Effective July 3, 2009, RAI entered into a Second Amendment
to Credit Agreement, referred to as the Second Amendment,
amending RAIs credit facility. The Second Amendment amends
the credit facility by, among other things:
|
|
|
|
|
terminating the revolving loan commitment of Lehman Commercial
Paper Inc., referred to as LCPI, which filed for protection
under Chapter 11 of the federal Bankruptcy Code on
October 5, 2008, and thereby reducing the total revolving
loan commitment under the credit facility from $550 million
to $498 million;
|
|
|
|
amending the definition of Lender Default and
certain related definitions;
|
|
|
|
granting RAI the right under certain circumstances to terminate
the revolving loan commitment of a Defaulting Lender, as defined
in the credit facility, if RAI is unable to replace such
Defaulting Lender; and
|
|
|
|
otherwise clarifying the rights and responsibilities of the
parties to the credit facility upon the occurrence of a Lender
Default.
|
Effective with the Second Amendment, RAIs credit facility
of $498 million may be increased up to $848 million at
the discretion of the lenders upon the request of RAI.
46
Lenders and their respective commitments in the credit facility,
which are several, not joint, commitments, are listed below:
|
|
|
|
|
Lender
|
|
Commitment
|
|
|
JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A.
|
|
$
|
52.89
|
|
Citibank N.A.
|
|
|
52.89
|
|
Morgan Stanley Bank
|
|
|
52.00
|
|
Mizuho Corporate Bank, Ltd.
|
|
|
52.00
|
|
General Electric Capital Corporation
|
|
|
52.00
|
|
AG First Farm Credit Bank
|
|
|
52.00
|
|
Goldman Sachs Bank USA
|
|
|
35.00
|
|
Wachovia Bank, National Association
|
|
|
35.00
|
|
The Bank of Nova Scotia
|
|
|
35.00
|
|
The Bank of New York
|
|
|
35.00
|
|
Farm Credit Services of Minnesota Valley, PCA DBA FCS Commercial
Finance Group
|
|
|
20.00
|
|
City National Bank of New Jersey
|
|
|
14.22
|
|
Farm Credit Bank of Texas
|
|
|
10.00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
498.00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
At December 31, 2009, RAI had $15 million in letters
of credit outstanding under the credit facility. At such date,
no borrowings were outstanding, and the remaining
$483 million of the credit facility was available for
borrowing.
Certain of RAIs subsidiaries, including the Guarantors,
have guaranteed RAIs obligations under the credit facility
and under RAIs outstanding senior notes, referred to as
the Notes. The collateral for the credit facility, Notes and
related guarantees (which was released during 2008) will be
reinstated if RAIs corporate credit rating issued by each
of S&P and Moodys is lowered to at least one level
below the lowest rating level established as investment grade,
or if RAIs corporate credit rating issued by either
S&P or Moodys is lowered to at least two levels below
the lowest rating level established as investment grade.
Concerns about, or lowering of, RAIs ratings by S&P
or Moodys could have an adverse impact on RAIs
ability to access the debt markets and could increase borrowing
costs. However, given the cash balances and operating
performance of RAI and its subsidiaries, RAIs management
believes that such concerns about, or lowering of, such ratings
would not have a material adverse impact on RAIs cash
flows.
RAI, RJR and their affiliates were in compliance with all
covenants and restrictions imposed by their indebtedness at
December 31, 2009.
Dividends
On February 2, 2010, RAIs board of directors declared
a quarterly cash dividend of $0.90 per common share. The
dividend will be paid on April 1, 2010, to shareholders of
record as of March 10, 2010. On an annualized basis, the
dividend rate is $3.60 per common share. The current dividend
reflects RAIs policy of paying dividends to the holders of
RAI common stock in an aggregate amount that is approximately
75% of RAIs annual consolidated net income.
Stock
Repurchases
On April 29, 2008, RAIs board of directors authorized
RAIs repurchase, prior to April 30, 2009, of up to
$350 million of outstanding shares of RAI common stock in
open market or privately negotiated transactions. Due to
RAIs incorporation in North Carolina, which does not
recognize treasury shares, the shares repurchased are cancelled
at the time of repurchase. RAI had repurchased and cancelled
3,817,095 shares of RAI common stock for
47
$207 million under the above share repurchase program
during 2008. RAI did not repurchase any shares of RAI common
stock under this program in 2009.
Additionally during 2009, at a cost of $5 million, RAI
purchased 154,441 shares that were forfeited with respect
to tax liabilities associated with restricted stock vesting
under its LTIP.
Capital
Expenditures
RAIs operating subsidiaries recorded cash capital
expenditures of $141 million, $113 million and
$142 million in 2009, 2008 and 2007, respectively. Of the
2009 amount, $55 million related to RJR Tobacco and
$75 million related to Conwood. RJR Tobacco plans to spend
$50 million to $60 million for capital expenditures
during 2010, primarily on non-discretionary business
requirements, and Conwood plans to spend $165 million to
$175 million in 2010, primarily on non-discretionary
capacity projects for the Memphis, Tennessee and Clarksville,
Tennessee facilities. Capital expenditures are funded primarily
by cash flows from operations. RAIs operating
subsidiaries capital expenditure programs are expected to
continue at a level sufficient to support their strategic and
operating needs. There were no material long-term commitments
for capital expenditures as of December 31, 2009.
Retirement
Benefits
Due primarily to the adverse changes in the financial markets,
RAIs pension assets have been negatively impacted. In
2008, the overall rate of return on the investments for the
pension assets was negative approximately 30.1%. RAI assessed
the asset allocation and investment strategy and will phase in
appropriate changes to balance funded status, interest rate risk
and asset returns. Once fully implemented, these changes will
reduce the pension funds exposure to equities and increase
exposure to fixed income and alternatives. As a result of
changes to the asset allocation and investment strategy, RAI
lowered the expected long-term return on pension assets,
referred to as the ELTRA, to 8.25%, in 2009, from 8.74%. The
ELTRA, asset allocation, current asset performance and the
discount rate may impact the funded status of RAIs pension
plans. As a result, to improve the funded status, RAI
contributed $295 million to the pension assets in 2009 and
pension expense increased approximately $187 million in
2009 to $125 million.
In 2009, the overall rate of return on the investments for the
pension assets was approximately 24.8%. In 2010, RAI plans to
contribute $309 million to the pension assets, of which
$300 million was contributed in January 2010, and the
pension expense is expected to be $115 million.
Income
Taxes
At December 31, 2009, RAI had a net deferred tax asset of
$515 million. RAI has determined that no valuation
allowance is required to be recorded against this deferred tax
asset as RAI believes it is more likely than not that all of the
deferred tax asset will be realized. This determination is due
largely to RAIs historical and projected reporting pretax
earnings and taxable income.
Litigation
and Settlements
As discussed in Item 8, note 14 to consolidated
financial statements, RJR Tobacco, the Conwood companies and
their affiliates, including RAI, and indemnitees, including
B&W, have been named in a number of tobacco-related legal
actions, proceedings or claims seeking damages in amounts
ranging into the hundreds of millions or even billions of
dollars. Unfavorable judgments have been returned in a number of
tobacco-related cases and state enforcement actions. As of
January 29, 2010, RJR Tobacco has paid approximately
$12 million since January 1, 2007, related to
unfavorable judgments. RJR, including its subsidiary RJR
Tobacco, have liabilities totaling $94 million that were
recorded in connection with certain indemnification claims, not
related to smoking and health, asserted by JTI against RJR and
RJR Tobacco, relating to the activities of Northern Brands and
related litigation.
RAIs management continues to conclude that the loss of any
particular 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 against
the Conwood companies, when viewed on an individual basis, is
not probable. RAI and its subsidiaries believe that they have
valid bases for appeal of adverse verdicts against them and have
valid defenses to all actions and intend to defend all actions
vigorously. Nonetheless, the possibility of material losses
related to
48
tobacco litigation is more than remote. Litigation is subject to
many uncertainties, and generally it is not possible to predict
the outcome of the litigation pending against RJR Tobacco, the
Conwood companies or their affiliates or indemnitees, or to
reasonably estimate the amount or range of any possible loss.
Moreover, notwithstanding the quality of defenses available to
it and its affiliates in tobacco-related litigation matters, it
is possible that RAIs consolidated results of operations,
cash flows or financial position could be materially adversely
affected by the ultimate outcome of certain pending or future
litigation matters.
In November 1998, RJR Tobacco, B&W and the other major
U.S. cigarette manufacturers entered into the MSA with
attorneys general representing most U.S. states,
territories and possessions. As described in Item 8,
note 14 to consolidated financial statements, the State
Settlement Agreements impose a perpetual stream of future
payment obligations on RJR Tobacco and the other major
U.S. cigarette manufacturers and place significant
restrictions on their ability to market and sell cigarettes in
the future. For more information related to historical and
expected settlement expenses and payments under the State
Settlement Agreements, see Litigation
Affecting the Cigarette Industry Health-Care Cost
Recovery Cases State Settlement Agreements in
Item 8, note 14 to consolidated financial statements.
The State Settlement Agreements have materially adversely
affected RJR Tobaccos 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 Tobaccos 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.
RJR Tobacco and certain of the other participating manufacturers
under the State Settlement Agreements are currently involved in
litigation with the settling states with respect to the
availability for certain market years of a downward adjustment
to the annual State Settlement Agreements payment
obligation, known as the Non-Participating Manufacturer
Adjustment. Pending the resolution of these disputes, RJR
Tobacco and certain of the other participating manufacturers
have placed the disputed portions of their 2006, 2007 and 2008
annual payments into the MSA disputed funds account. In February
2009, approximately $431 million was released, without
waiving claim, to the settling states. Accordingly, RJR Tobacco
had approximately $1.2 billion deposited in the MSA
disputed funds account as of December 31, 2009. In April
2009, RJR Tobacco retained approximately $406.5 million of
its 2009 MSA payment to reflect its share of the 2006 NPM
Adjustment as calculated by the independent auditor. For more
information related to this litigation, see
Litigation Affecting the Cigarette
Industry State Settlement Agreements
Enforcement and Validity and Other NPM Adjustment
Claims in Item 8, note 14 to consolidated
financial statements.
Governmental
Activity
The marketing, sale, taxation and use of tobacco products have
been subject to substantial regulation by government and health
officials for many years. Various state governments have adopted
or are considering, among other things, legislation and
regulations that would:
|
|
|
|
|
significantly increase their taxes on tobacco products;
|
|
|
|
restrict displays, advertising and sampling of tobacco products;
|
|
|
|
establish fire standards compliance for cigarettes;
|
|
|
|
raise the minimum age to possess or purchase tobacco products;
|
|
|
|
restrict or ban the use of certain flavorings, including
menthol, in tobacco products, or the use of certain flavor
descriptors in the marketing of tobacco products;
|
|
|
|
require the disclosure of ingredients used in the manufacture of
tobacco products;
|
|
|
|
require the disclosure of nicotine yield information for
cigarettes;
|
|
|
|
impose restrictions on smoking in public and private
areas; and
|
|
|
|
restrict the sale of tobacco products directly to consumers or
other unlicensed recipients, including over the Internet.
|
49
In addition, as discussed in greater detail below, during 2009,
the U.S. Congress adopted legislation increasing the
federal excise tax on cigarettes and other tobacco products, and
granting the FDA broad authority over the manufacture, sale,
marketing and packaging of tobacco products. During 2010, the
U.S. Congress also may consider legislation regarding:
|
|
|
|
|
regulation of environmental tobacco smoke;
|
|
|
|
implementation of a national fire standards compliance for
cigarettes;
|
|
|
|
regulation of the retail sale of tobacco products over the
Internet and in other non-face-to-face retail transactions, such
as by mail order and telephone; and
|
|
|
|
banning of the delivery of tobacco products by the
U.S. Postal Service.
|
Together with manufacturers price increases in recent
years and substantial increases in state and federal taxes on
tobacco products, these developments have had and will likely
continue to have an adverse effect on the sale of tobacco
products.
Cigarettes and other tobacco products are subject to substantial
taxes in the United States. On February 4, 2009, President
Obama signed into law, effective April 1, 2009, an increase
of $0.62 in the excise tax per pack of cigarettes, and
significant tax increases on other tobacco products, to fund
expansion of the SCHIP.
Under these federal tax increases:
|
|
|
|
|
the federal excise tax per pack of 20 cigarettes increased to
$1.01;
|
|
|
|
the federal excise tax rate for chewing tobacco increased
$0.3083 per pound to $0.5033 per pound, and for snuff increased
$0.925 per pound to $1.51 per pound;
|
|
|
|
the federal excise tax on small cigars, defined as those
weighing three pounds or less per thousand, increased $48.502
per thousand to $50.33 per thousand; and
|
|
|
|
the federal excise tax rate for roll-your-own tobacco increased
from $1.097 per pound to $24.78 per pound.
|
All states and the District of Columbia currently impose
cigarette excise taxes at levels ranging from $0.07 per pack in
South Carolina to $3.46 per pack in Rhode Island. As of
December 31, 2009, the weighted average state cigarette
excise tax per pack, calculated on a
12-month
rolling average basis, was approximately $1.16, compared with
the 12-month
rolling average of $1.00 as of December 31, 2008. During
2009, 14 states and the District of Columbia passed
cigarette excise tax increases, and a number of other states are
considering an increase in their cigarette excise taxes for
2010. Certain city and county governments, such as New York and
Chicago, also impose substantial excise taxes on cigarettes sold
in those jurisdictions.
Cigars generally are taxed by states on an ad valorem basis,
ranging from 5% in South Carolina to 80% in Rhode Island. Other
states have unit-based tax schemes for cigars or tax little
cigars the same as cigarettes.
Forty-nine states and the District of Columbia also subject
smokeless tobacco to excise taxes, and the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania, the singular exception, may enact such a tax
during its 2010 legislative session. As of December 31,
2009, 32 states taxed moist snuff, and 44 states taxed
chewing tobacco, on an ad valorem basis at rates that range from
5% in South Carolina to 100% in Wisconsin. Other states have a
unit tax or a weight-based tax. During 2009, four states and the
District of Columbia enacted legislation changing from an ad
valorem to a weight-based taxation system on moist snuff. In
addition, Oregon also passed a weight-based tax on moist snuff,
which took effect on January 1, 2010, and Wisconsin
switched the method of taxing moist snuff from a weight-based
tax back to an ad valorem tax. Legislation to convert from an ad
valorem to a weight-based tax is expected to be introduced in
several states in 2010. In total, during 2009, 17 states
passed tax increases on other tobacco products, and a number of
other states are considering an increase in their taxes on other
tobacco products for 2010.
50
On July 16, 2009, Oregon enacted a statute including a
requirement that smokeless tobacco manufacturers who are not
signatories to the Smokeless Tobacco Master Settlement
Agreement, referred to as the STMSA, either certify compliance
with certain requirements imposed by the STMSA or place into
escrow $0.40 for every unit of smokeless tobacco sold in the
state as security against certain types of claims that might be
brought by Oregon or other Releasing Parties under
the STMSA. On September 4, 2009, Conwood Company, LLC,
among others, brought suit in Circuit Court, Madison County,
Oregon (Conwood Company, LLC v. Kroger) to enjoin
the enforcement of this Oregon statute contending the statute
violates the constitutions of Oregon and the United States. For
further information regarding this case, see Item 8,
note 14, to consolidated financial statements.
Oregon also is considering legislation that would require
smokeless tobacco manufacturers to join the STMSA and make
payments thereunder or place into escrow an amount equivalent to
what a manufacturer would have paid had it joined the STMSA. The
legislation also would change the tax on chewing tobacco from ad
valorem to a weight-based tax of $1.78 per ounce.
In 1964, the Report of the Advisory Committee to the Surgeon
General of the U.S. Public Health Service concluded that
cigarette smoking was a health hazard of sufficient importance
to warrant appropriate remedial action. Since 1966, federal law
has required a warning statement on cigarette packaging, and
cigarette advertising in other media also is required to contain
a warning statement. Since 1971, television and radio
advertising of cigarettes has been prohibited in the United
States.
During the past four decades, various laws affecting the
cigarette industry have been enacted. In 1984, Congress enacted
the Comprehensive Smoking Education Act. Among other things,
this act:
|
|
|
|
|
established an interagency committee on smoking and health that
is charged with carrying out a program to inform the public of
any dangers to human health presented by cigarette smoking;
|
|
|
|
required a series of four health warnings to be printed on
cigarette packages and advertising on a rotating basis;
|
|
|
|
increased type size and area of the warning required in
cigarette advertisements; and
|
|
|
|
required that cigarette manufacturers provide annually, on a
confidential basis, a list of ingredients added to tobacco in
the manufacture of cigarettes to the Secretary of Health and
Human Services.
|
The warnings currently required on cigarette packages and
advertisements are:
|
|
|
|
|
SURGEON GENERALS WARNING: Smoking Causes Lung
Cancer, Heart Disease, Emphysema, And May Complicate
Pregnancy;
|
|
|
|
SURGEON GENERALS WARNING: Quitting Smoking Now
Greatly Reduces Serious Risks to Your Health;
|
|
|
|
SURGEON GENERALS WARNING: Smoking By Pregnant Women
May Result in Fetal Injury, Premature Birth, And Low Birth
Weight; and
|
|
|
|
SURGEON GENERALS WARNING: Cigarette Smoke Contains
Carbon Monoxide.
|
Since the initial report in 1964, the Secretary of Health,
Education and Welfare, now the Secretary of Health and Human
Services, and the Surgeon General have issued a number of other
reports which purport to find the nicotine in cigarettes
addictive and to link cigarette smoking and exposure to
cigarette smoke with certain health hazards, including various
types of cancer, coronary heart disease and chronic obstructive
lung disease. These reports have recommended various
governmental measures to reduce the incidence of smoking. In
1992, the federal Alcohol, Drug Abuse and Mental Health Act was
signed into law. This act required states to adopt a minimum age
of 18 for purchase of tobacco products and to establish a system
to monitor, report and reduce the illegal sale of tobacco
products to minors in order to continue receiving federal
funding for mental health and drug abuse programs. In 1996, the
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services announced
regulations implementing this legislation. And in 2006, the
Surgeon General released a report entitled The Health
Consequences of Involuntary Exposure to Tobacco Smoke.
Among its conclusions, the report found the following: exposure
of adults to secondhand smoke causes coronary heart disease and
lung cancer, exposure of children to secondhand smoke
51
results in an increased risk of sudden infant death syndrome,
acute respiratory infections, ear problems and more severe
asthma; and that there is no risk-free level of exposure to
secondhand smoke.
In 1986, Congress enacted the Comprehensive Smokeless Tobacco
Health Education Act of 1986, which, among other things,
required health warning notices on smokeless tobacco packages
and advertising and prohibited the advertising of smokeless
tobacco products on any medium of electronic communications
subject to the jurisdiction of the Federal Communications
Commission. The warnings currently required on smokeless tobacco
packages and advertising, which appear on a rotating basis, are:
|
|
|
|
|
WARNING: THIS PRODUCT MAY CAUSE MOUTH CANCER;
|
|
|
|
WARNING: THIS PRODUCT MAY CAUSE GUM DISEASE AND TOOTH
LOSS; and
|
|
|
|
WARNING: THIS PRODUCT IS NOT A SAFE ALTERNATIVE TO
CIGARETTES.
|
In 2000, the seven largest U.S. cigar companies, including
Lane, entered into agreements with the FTC, to clearly and
conspicuously display on virtually every cigar package and
advertisement one of the following warnings, which appear on a
rotating basis:
|
|
|
|
|
SURGEON GENERAL WARNING: Cigar Smoking Can Cause Cancers
Of The Mouth And Throat, Even If You Do Not Inhale;
|
|
|
|
SURGEON GENERAL WARNING: Cigar Smoking Can Cause Lung
Cancer And Heart Disease;
|
|
|
|
SURGEON GENERAL WARNING: Tobacco Use Increases The Risk Of
Infertility, Stillbirth And Low Birth Weight;
|
|
|
|
SURGEON GENERAL WARNING: Cigars Are Not A Safe Alternative
To Cigarettes; and
|
|
|
|
SURGEON GENERAL WARNING: Tobacco Smoke Increases The Risk
Of Lung Cancer And Heart Disease, Even In Nonsmokers.
|
On June 22, 2009, President Obama signed into law the FDA
Tobacco Act, which grants the FDA broad authority over the
manufacture, sale, marketing and packaging of tobacco products.
The following provisions of the FDA Tobacco Act took effect upon
passage:
|
|
|
|
|
no charitable distribution of tobacco products;
|
|
|
|
prohibitions on statements that would lead consumers to believe
that a tobacco product is approved, endorsed, or deemed safe by
the FDA;
|
|
|
|
pre-market approval by the FDA for claims made with respect to
reduced risk or reduced exposure products; and
|
|
|
|
prohibition on the marketing of tobacco products in conjunction
with any other class of product regulated by the FDA.
|
In addition, as of September 20, 2009, tobacco
manufacturers are banned from selling cigarettes with
characterizing flavors (other than menthol, which under the FDA
Tobacco Act is specifically exempt as a characterizing flavor,
but the impact of which on public health will be studied as
discussed below).
Over the course of the next three years, various provisions
under the FDA Tobacco Act and regulations to be issued under the
FDA Tobacco Act will become effective and will:
|
|
|
|
|
require tobacco manufacturers to register their manufacturing
facilities and list of tobacco products;
|
|
|
|
require manufacturers to produce health-related documents
generated from and after June 22, 2009;
|
|
|
|
require manufacturers to report ingredients and harmful
constituents;
|
52
|
|
|
|
|
require different and larger warnings on packaging and
advertising for cigarettes and smokeless tobacco products;
|
|
|
|
ban the use of descriptors on tobacco products, such as
low-tar and light;
|
|
|
|
require manufacturers to obtain FDA clearance for cigarette and
smokeless tobacco products commercially launched or to be
launched after February 15, 2007;
|
|
|
|
require manufacturers to test ingredients and constituents
identified by FDA and disclose this information to the public;
|
|
|
|
prohibit use of tobacco containing a pesticide chemical residue
at a level greater than allowed under Federal law;
|
|
|
|
establish good manufacturing practices to be
followed at tobacco manufacturing facilities;
|
|
|
|
authorize the FDA to place more severe restrictions on the
advertising, marketing and sale of tobacco products;
|
|
|
|
permit inconsistent state regulation of labeling and advertising
and eliminate the existing federal preemption of such regulation;
|
|
|
|
authorize the FDA to require the reduction of nicotine and the
reduction or elimination of other constituents; and
|
|
|
|
grant the FDA the regulatory authority to impose broad
additional restrictions.
|
The U.S. Congress did limit the FDAs authority in two
areas, prohibiting it from:
|
|
|
|
|
banning all tobacco products; and
|
|
|
|
requiring the reduction of nicotine yields of a tobacco product
to zero.
|
A Center for Tobacco Products has been established
within the FDA, funded through quarterly user fees that will be
assessed against tobacco product manufacturers and importers
based on market share. The total amount of user fees to be
collected over the first ten years will be approximately
$5.4 billion. The expense related to the FDA user fees of
RAIs operating companies was $22 million in 2009, and
the expense for 2010 will be approximately $75 million to
$85 million.
Within the Center, a Tobacco Products Scientific Advisory
Committee will provide advice, information and recommendations
with respect to the safety, dependence or health issues related
to tobacco products, including:
|
|
|
|
|
a recommendation on modified risk applications;
|
|
|
|
a recommendation as to whether there is a threshold level below
which nicotine yields do not produce dependence;
|
|
|
|
a report on the impact of the use of menthol in cigarettes on
the public health; and
|
|
|
|
a report on the impact of dissolvable tobacco products on the
public health.
|
In February 2010, RJR Tobacco received a letter from the
Center for Tobacco Products (which letter is available on the
FDAs web site) requesting, in connection with the Tobacco
Products Scientific Advisory Committees study of
dissolvable tobacco products, certain information regarding the
perception and use of CAMEL Dissolvables. RJR Tobacco, which
markets its tobacco products only to adult tobacco users,
intends to respond to FDAs information request.
On August 31, 2009, RJR Tobacco and Conwood joined other
tobacco manufacturers and a tobacco retailer in filing a lawsuit
in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Kentucky (Commonwealth Brands, Inc. v. United States of
America), challenging certain provisions of the FDA Tobacco
Act that severely restrict the few remaining channels available
to communicate with adult tobacco consumers. RAI believes these
provisions cannot be justified on any basis consistent with the
demands of the First Amendment. The suit does not challenge the
U.S. Congresss decision to give the FDA regulatory
authority over tobacco products, nor does it challenge the vast
majority of the provisions of the new law. For further
information regarding this case, see Item 8, note 14
to consolidated financial statements.
53
It is likely that the FDA Tobacco Act could result in a decrease
in cigarette and smokeless tobacco sales in the United States,
including sales of RJR Tobaccos and Conwoods brands,
and an increase in costs to RJR Tobacco and Conwood that could
have a material adverse effect on RAIs financial
condition, results of operations and cash flows. RAI believes
that such regulation may adversely affect the ability of its
operating subsidiaries to compete against their larger
competitor, which may be able to more quickly and
cost-effectively comply with these new rules and regulations.
The FDA has yet to issue guidance with respect to many
provisions of the FDA Tobacco Act, which may result in less
efficient compliance efforts. Finally, the ability of RAIs
operating companies to gain efficient market clearance for new
tobacco products could be affected by FDA rules and regulations.
Legislation imposing various restrictions on public smoking also
has been enacted by 49 states and many local jurisdictions,
and many employers have initiated programs restricting or
eliminating smoking in the workplace. A number of states have
enacted legislation designating a portion of increased cigarette
excise taxes to fund either anti-smoking programs, health-care
programs or cancer research. In addition, educational and
research programs addressing health-care issues related to
smoking are being funded from industry payments made or to be
made under settlements with state attorneys general. Federal law
prohibits smoking in scheduled passenger aircraft, and the
U.S. Interstate Commerce Commission has banned smoking on
buses transporting passengers interstate. Certain common
carriers have imposed additional restrictions on passenger
smoking.
In 2003, the California Environmental Protection Agency Air
Resources Board issued a Proposed Identification of
Environmental Tobacco Smoke as a Toxic Air Contaminant for
public review. In 2006, the Air Resources Board identified
environmental tobacco smoke as a Toxic Air Contaminant,
following a three-year administrative process. The Air Resources
Board is now required to prepare a report assessing the need and
appropriate degree of control of environmental tobacco smoke.
RJR Tobacco cannot predict the form any future California
regulation may take.
In 2003, the New York Office of Fire Prevention and Control
issued a final standard with accompanying regulations that
requires all cigarettes offered for sale in New York State after
June 28, 2004, to achieve specified test results when
placed on ten layers of filter paper in controlled laboratory
conditions. As of December 31, 2009, 48 states in
addition to New York, as well as Washington, D.C., had
enacted fire standards compliance legislation of their own,
adopting the same testing standard set forth in the OFPC
regulations described above. The cigarettes that RAIs
operating companies sell in these jurisdictions comply with this
standard. Wyoming remains the only state to not have enacted
this type of legislation. Recognizing these legislative trends
in conjunction with its effort to increase productivity and
reduce complexity, RJR Tobacco voluntarily converted all of its
brands to fire standard compliance paper by the end of 2009.
In July 2007, the State of Maine became the first state to enact
a statute that prohibits the sale of cigarettes and cigars that
have a characterizing flavor. The legislation defines
characterizing flavor as a distinguishable taste or aroma
that is imparted to tobacco or tobacco smoke either prior to or
during consumption, other than a taste or aroma from tobacco,
menthol, clove, coffee, nuts or peppers. In October 2008,
the State of New Jersey passed a similar ban on flavored
cigarettes with a similar definition of characterizing flavor
but excluding only tobacco, menthol or clove. Additionally, New
Jersey extended the ban not only to whether the product itself
has a characterizing flavor as part of the aroma of the product
or smoke, but also if the product was marketed or advertised as
producing such a flavor, taste or aroma. During 2009, New York
City passed legislation that would ban characterizing flavors in
tobacco products other than cigarettes beginning on
February 25, 2010. An exemption applies if the
characterizing flavor is tobacco, menthol, mint or wintergreen.
U.S. Smokeless Tobacco Manufacturing Co. LLC and
U.S. Smokeless Tobacco Brands, Inc. filed suit in federal
court on January 7, 2010, claiming that the local law is
preempted by the FDA Tobacco Act and violates the Commerce
Clause of the U.S. Constitution. Similar bills banning
characterizing flavors in tobacco products are pending in other
states.
Effective October 1, 2008, the San Francisco Board of
Supervisors adopted a ban on the sale of tobacco products in
some pharmacies. During 2009, the Boston Public Health
Commission and the Massachusetts communities of Uxbridge and
Needham instituted similar bans.
54
A price differential exists between cigarettes manufactured for
sale abroad and cigarettes manufactured for sale in the United
States. Consequently, a domestic gray market has developed in
cigarettes manufactured for sale abroad, but instead diverted
for domestic sales that compete with cigarettes that RJR Tobacco
manufactures for domestic sale. The U.S. federal government
and all states, except Massachusetts, have enacted legislation
prohibiting the sale and distribution of gray market cigarettes.
In addition, RJR Tobacco has taken legal action against
distributors and retailers who engage in such practices.
RJR Tobacco expects to benefit from certain state legislative
activity aimed at leveling the playing field between
original participating manufacturers under the MSA
and nonparticipating manufacturers under the MSA,
referred to as NPMs. Forty-six states have passed legislation to
ensure NPMs are making required escrow payments. Under this
legislation, a state would only permit distribution of brands by
manufacturers who are deemed by the states to be MSA-compliant.
Failure to make escrow payments could result in the loss of an
NPMs ability to sell tobacco products in a respective
state.
Additionally, 44 states have enacted legislation that
closes a loophole in the MSA. The loophole allows NPMs that
concentrate their sales in a single state, or a limited number
of states, to recover most of the funds from their escrow
accounts. To obtain the refunds, the manufacturers must
establish that their escrow deposit was greater than the amount
the state would have received had the manufacturer been a
subsequent participating manufacturer under the MSA,
that is, the states allocable share. The
National Association of Attorneys General, referred to as NAAG,
has endorsed adoption of the allocable share legislation needed
to eliminate this loophole. Following a challenge by NPMs, the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
has issued an order enjoining New York from enforcing allocable
share legislation. It is possible that NPMs will challenge
allocable share legislation passed in other states.
Finally, four states, Alaska, Michigan, Minnesota and Utah, have
enacted equity assessments on NPMs products.
This legislative initiative has not been endorsed by NAAG, and
one NPM has filed a challenge to the equity assessment in
Michigan.
Forty-two states by statute or court rule have limited, and
several additional states are considering limiting, the amount
of the bonds required to file an appeal of an adverse judgment
in state court. The limitation on the amount of such bonds
generally ranges from $1 million to $150 million.
Bonding statutes in 37 states allow defendants that are
subject to large adverse judgments, such as cigarette
manufacturers, to reasonably bond such judgments and pursue the
appellate process. In five other states and Puerto Rico, the
filing of a notice of appeal automatically stays the judgment of
the trial court.
In 2003, the World Health Organization adopted a broad
tobacco-control treaty. The treaty recommends and requires
enactment of legislation establishing specific actions to
prevent youth smoking, restrict and gradually eliminate tobacco
products marketing, provide greater regulation and disclosure of
ingredients, increase the size and scope of package warning
labels to cover at least 30% of each package and include graphic
pictures on packages. The treaty entered into force on
February 27, 2005 90 days after
ratification by the 40th country. In February 2006, the
first session of the Conference of the Parties, referred to as
the COP, occurred in Geneva, Switzerland. The COP, among other
actions taken, established a permanent secretariat, adopted a
budget, and created working groups to begin to develop protocols
on cross-border advertising and illegal trade and guidelines on
establishing smoke-free places and regulating tobacco products.
Among the decisions taken at the COPs second session, in
July 2007, the COP adopted guidelines from the working group on
the protection from exposure to tobacco smoke and called for an
intergovernmental negotiating body to negotiate a protocol on
illicit trade. At the COPs third conference, in November
2008, the parties adopted guidelines with respect to various
provisions of the tobacco control treaty, including the
packaging and labeling of tobacco products. The fourth COP
session is scheduled to be held in Uruguay in late 2010.
Although the U.S. delegate to the World Health Organization
voted for the treaty in May 2003, and the Secretary for Health
and Human Services signed the document in May 2004, the Bush
Administration did not send the treaty to the U.S. Senate
for ratification. Ratification by the United States could lead
to broader regulation of the industry.
55
It is not possible to determine what additional federal, state
or local legislation or regulations relating to smoking or
cigarettes will be enacted or to predict the effect of new
legislation or regulations on RJR Tobacco or the cigarette
industry in general, but any new legislation or regulations
could have an adverse effect on RJR Tobacco or the cigarette
industry in general. Similarly, it is not possible to determine
what additional federal, state or local legislation or
regulations relating to smokeless tobacco products will be
enacted or to predict the effect of new regulation on Conwood or
smokeless tobacco products in general, but any new legislation
or regulations could have an adverse effect on Conwood or
smokeless tobacco products in general.
Tobacco
Buyout Legislation
For information relating to tobacco buyout legislation, see
Tobacco Buyout Legislation and Related
Litigation in Item 8, note 14 to consolidated
financial statements.
Other
Contingencies
For information relating to other contingencies of RAI, RJR, RJR
Tobacco and Conwood, see Other
Contingencies in Item 8, note 14 to consolidated
financial statements.
Off-Balance
Sheet Arrangements
RAI has no off-balance sheet arrangements that have or are
reasonably likely to have a current or future material effect on
its financial position, results of operations, liquidity,
capital expenditures or capital resources.
Cautionary
Information Regarding Forward-Looking Statements
Statements included in this report that are not historical in
nature are forward-looking statements made pursuant to the safe
harbor provisions of the Private Securities Litigation Reform
Act of 1995. These statements regarding future events or the
future performance or results of RAI and its subsidiaries
inherently are subject to a variety of risks and uncertainties
that could cause actual results to differ materially from those
described in the forward-looking statements. These risks and
uncertainties include:
|
|
|
|
|
the substantial and increasing taxation and regulation of
tobacco products, including the recent federal excise tax
increases, and the regulation of tobacco products by the FDA;
|
|
|
|
the possibility that the FDA will issue a regulation prohibiting
menthol as a flavor in cigarettes or that the FDA will extend
the ban on characterizing flavors to smokeless tobacco products;
|
|
|
|
various legal actions, proceedings and claims relating to the
sale, distribution, manufacture, development, advertising,
marketing and claimed health effects of tobacco products that
are pending or may be instituted against RAI or its subsidiaries;
|
|
|
|
the potential difficulty of obtaining bonds as a result of
litigation outcomes;
|
|
|
|
the substantial payment obligations with respect to cigarette
sales, and the substantial limitations on the advertising and
marketing of cigarettes (and RJR Tobaccos smoke-free
tobacco products) under the State Settlement Agreements;
|
|
|
|
the continuing decline in volume in the U.S. cigarette
industry and RAIs dependence on the U.S. cigarette
industry;
|
|
|
|
concentration of a material amount of sales with a single
customer or distributor;
|
|
|
|
competition from other manufacturers, including industry
consolidations or any new entrants in the marketplace;
|
56
|
|
|
|
|
increased promotional activities by competitors, including
deep-discount cigarette brands;
|
|
|
|
the success or failure of new product innovations and
acquisitions;
|
|
|
|
the responsiveness of both the trade and consumers to new
products, marketing strategies and promotional programs;
|
|
|
|
the ability to achieve efficiencies in the businesses of
RAIs operating companies, including outsourcing functions,
without negatively affecting sales;
|
|
|
|
the reliance on a limited number of suppliers for certain raw
materials;
|
|
|
|
the cost of tobacco leaf and other raw materials and other
commodities used in products;
|
|
|
|
the effect of market conditions on interest rate risk, foreign
currency exchange rate risk and the return on corporate cash;
|
|
|
|
declining liquidity in the financial markets, including
bankruptcy of lenders participating in the credit facility;
|
|
|
|
the impairment of goodwill and other intangible assets,
including trademarks;
|
|
|
|
the effect of market conditions on the performance of pension
assets or any adverse effects of any new legislation or
regulations changing pension expense accounting or required
pension funding levels;
|
|
|
|
the substantial amount of RAI debt;
|
|
|
|
the credit rating of RAI and its securities;
|
|
|
|
any restrictive covenants imposed under RAIs debt
agreements;
|
|
|
|
the possibility of fire, violent weather and other disasters
that may adversely affect manufacturing and other facilities;
|
|
|
|
the significant ownership interest of B&W, RAIs
largest shareholder, in RAI and the rights of B&W under the
governance agreement between the companies;
|
|
|
|
the expiration of the standstill provisions of the governance
agreement; and
|
|
|
|
the potential existence of significant deficiencies or material
weaknesses in internal control over financial reporting that may
be identified during the performance of testing required under
Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.
|
Due to these uncertainties and risks, you are cautioned not to
place undue reliance on these forward-looking statements, which
speak only as of the date of this report. Except as provided by
federal securities laws, RAI is not required to publicly update
or revise any forward-looking statement, whether as a result of
new information, future events or otherwise.
|
|
Item 7A.
|
Quantitative
and Qualitative Disclosures about Market Risk
|
Market risk represents the risk of loss that may impact the
consolidated results of operations, cash flows and financial
position due to adverse changes in financial market prices and
rates. RAI and its subsidiaries are exposed to interest rate
risk directly related to their normal investing and funding
activities. In addition, RAI and its subsidiaries have
immaterial exposure to foreign currency exchange rate risk
concerning investments in, or obligations for, and service
agreements related to, foreign operations denominated in euros,
British pounds, Swiss francs, Swedish krona, Chinese renminbi
and Japanese yen. RAI and its subsidiaries have established
policies and procedures to manage their exposure to market risks
and use major institutions as counterparties to minimize their
investment and credit risk. Frequently, these institutions are
also members of the bank group that provide RAI credit, and
management believes this further minimizes the risk of
nonperformance. Derivative financial instruments are not used
for trading or speculative purposes.
57
The table below provides information about RAIs financial
instruments, as of December 31, 2009, that are sensitive to
changes in interest rates. The table presents notional amounts
and weighted average interest rates by contractual maturity
dates for the years ending December 31:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fair
|
|
|
2010
|
|
2011
|
|
2012
|
|
2013
|
|
2014
|
|
Thereafter
|
|
Total
|
|
Value(1)
|
|
Investments:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Variable Rate
|
|
$
|
2,707
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
34
|
|
|
$
|
2,741
|
|
|
$
|
2,741
|
|
Average Interest Rate
|
|
|
0.1
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2.0
|
%
|
|
|
0.1
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
Fixed-Rate
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
5
|
|
|
$
|
5
|
|
|
$
|
5
|
|
Average Interest
Rate(2)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4.7
|
%
|
|
|
4.7
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
Debt:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fixed-Rate
|
|
$
|
300
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
450
|
|
|
$
|
685
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
2,375
|
|
|
$
|
3,810
|
|
|
$
|
4,050
|
|
Average Interest
Rate(2)
|
|
|
6.5
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
7.3
|
%
|
|
|
7.4
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
7.3
|
%
|
|
|
7.2
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
Variable Rate
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
400
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
400
|
|
|
$
|
396
|
|
Average Interest
Rate(2)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1.0
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1.0
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
Swaps Fixed to Floating:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Notional
Amount(3)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
350
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
1,150
|
|
|
$
|
1,500
|
|
|
$
|
182
|
|
Average Variable Interest Pay
Rate(2)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1.9
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1.7
|
%
|
|
|
1.7
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
Average Fixed Interest Receive
Rate(2)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
7.3
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
7.1
|
%
|
|
|
7.1
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
Swaps Floating to Fixed:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Notional
Amount(3)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
350
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
1,150
|
|
|
$
|
1,500
|
|
|
$
|
55
|
|
Average Variable Interest Pay
Rate(2)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1.9
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1.7
|
%
|
|
|
1.7
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
Average Fixed Interest Receive
Rate(2)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3.8
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4.1
|
%
|
|
|
4.0
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Fair values are based on current market rates available or on
rates available for instruments with similar terms and
maturities and quoted fair values. |
|
(2) |
|
Based upon contractual interest rates for fixed-rate
indebtedness or current market rates for LIBOR plus negotiated
spreads until maturity for variable rate indebtedness. |
|
(3) |
|
As of December 31, 2009, RAI had swapped $1.5 billion
of debt using both fixed-rate to floating-rate interest rate
swaps and floating-rate to fixed-rate interest rate swaps to
variable rate debt. See Item 8, note 13 to
consolidated financial statements for additional information. |
RAIs exposure to foreign currency transactions was not
material to results of operations for the year ended
December 31, 2009, but may become material in future
periods in relation to activity associated with RAIs
international operations. RAI currently has no hedges for its
exposure to foreign currency. See Liquidity
and Financial Condition in Item 7 for additional
information.
58
|
|
Item 8.
|
Financial
Statements and Supplementary Data
|
Report of
Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm
The Board of Directors and Shareholders
Reynolds American Inc.:
We have audited the accompanying consolidated balance sheets of
Reynolds American Inc. and subsidiaries as of December 31,
2009 and 2008, and the related consolidated statements of
income, shareholders equity and comprehensive income
(loss), and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year
period ended December 31, 2009. These consolidated
financial statements are the responsibility of the
Companys management. Our responsibility is to express an
opinion on these consolidated financial statements based on our
audits.
We conducted our audits in accordance with the standards of the
Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States). Those
standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain
reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are
free of material misstatement. An audit includes examining, on a
test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in
the financial statements. An audit also includes assessing the
accounting principles used and significant estimates made by
management, as well as evaluating the overall financial
statement presentation. We believe that our audits provide a
reasonable basis for our opinion.
In our opinion, the consolidated financial statements referred
to above present fairly, in all material respects, the financial
position of Reynolds American Inc. and subsidiaries as of
December 31, 2009 and 2008, and the results of their
operations and their cash flows for each of the years in the
three-year period ended December 31, 2009, in conformity
with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles.
As discussed in Note 1 to the consolidated financial
statements, the Company has changed its methods of accounting
for determining whether certain securities should be included in
the basic earnings per share calculation as of January 1,
2009, due to the adoption of Financial Accounting Standards
Board Staff Position
No. EITF 03-6-1,
Determining Whether Instruments Granted in Share-Based
Payment Transactions Are Participating Securities (codified
in Financial Accounting Standards Board Accounting Standards
Codification (FASB ASC) Topic 260, Earnings Per Share)
and for measuring and disclosing the fair value of assets and
liabilities as of January 1, 2008, due to the adoption of
Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 157,
Fair Value Measurements (codified in FASB ASC Topic
No. 820, Fair Value Measurements and Disclosures).
We also have audited, in accordance with the standards of the
Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States),
Reynolds American Inc.s internal control over financial
reporting as of December 31, 2009, based on criteria
established in Internal Control Integrated
Framework issued by the Committee of Sponsoring
Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO), and our report
dated February 19, 2010, expressed an unqualified opinion
on the effectiveness of the Companys internal control over
financial reporting.
Greensboro,
North Carolina
February 19, 2010
59
Managements
Report on Internal Control over Financial Reporting
Management is responsible for establishing and maintaining
adequate internal control over financial reporting, as such term
is defined in
Rule 13a-15(f)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Internal control over
financial reporting is a process designed to provide reasonable
assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and
the preparation of financial statements in accordance with
generally accepted accounting principles and includes those
policies and procedures that:
(i) pertain to the maintenance of records that, in
reasonable detail, accurately and fairly reflect the
transactions and dispositions of the assets of RAI,
(ii) provide reasonable assurance that transactions are
recorded as necessary to permit preparation of financial
statements in accordance with generally accepted accounting
principles, and that receipts and expenditures of RAI are being
made only in accordance with authorizations of management and
directors of RAI, and
(iii) provide reasonable assurance regarding prevention or
timely detection of unauthorized acquisition, use, or
disposition of RAIs assets that could have a material
effect on the financial statements.
Because of its inherent limitations, internal control over
financial reporting may not prevent or detect misstatements and
even when determined to be effective, can only provide
reasonable assurance with respect to financial statement
preparation and presentation. Also, projections of any
evaluation of effectiveness to future periods are subject to the
risk that controls may become inadequate because of changes in
conditions, or that the degree of compliance with the policies
and procedures may deteriorate.
Management conducted an evaluation of the effectiveness of
RAIs internal control over financial reporting based on
the framework in Internal Control Integrated
Framework issued by the Committee of Sponsoring
Organizations of the Treadway Commission. Based on this
evaluation, management concluded that RAIs system of
internal control over financial reporting was effective as of
December 31, 2009.
KPMG LLP, independent registered public accounting firm, has
audited RAIs consolidated financial statements and issued
an attestation report on RAIs internal control over
financial reporting as of December 31, 2009.
Dated: February 19, 2010
60
Report of
Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm
The Board of Directors and Shareholders
Reynolds American Inc.:
We have audited Reynolds American Inc. and subsidiaries
internal control over financial reporting as of
December 31, 2009, based on criteria established in
Internal Control Integrated Framework issued
by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway
Commission (COSO). Reynolds American Inc.s management is
responsible for maintaining effective internal control over
financial reporting and for its assessment of the effectiveness
of internal control over financial reporting, included in the
accompanying Managements Report on Internal Control over
Financial Reporting. Our responsibility is to express an opinion
on the Companys internal control over financial reporting
based on our audit.
We conducted our audit in accordance with the standards of the
Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States). Those
standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain
reasonable assurance about whether effective internal control
over financial reporting was maintained in all material
respects. Our audit included obtaining an understanding of
internal control over financial reporting, assessing the risk
that a material weakness exists, and testing and evaluating the
design and operating effectiveness of internal control based on
the assessed risk. Our audit also included performing such other
procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. We
believe that our audit provides a reasonable basis for our
opinion.
A companys internal control over financial reporting is a
process designed to provide reasonable assurance regarding the
reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of
financial statements for external purposes in accordance with
generally accepted accounting principles. A companys
internal control over financial reporting includes those
policies and procedures that (1) pertain to the maintenance
of records that, in reasonable detail, accurately and fairly
reflect the transactions and dispositions of the assets of the
company; (2) provide reasonable assurance that transactions
are recorded as necessary to permit preparation of financial
statements in accordance with generally accepted accounting
principles, and that receipts and expenditures of the company
are being made only in accordance with authorizations of
management and directors of the company; and (3) provide
reasonable assurance regarding prevention or timely detection of
unauthorized acquisition, use, or disposition of the
companys assets that could have a material effect on the
financial statements.
Because of its inherent limitations, internal control over
financial reporting may not prevent or detect misstatements.
Also, projections of any evaluation of effectiveness to future
periods are subject to the risk that controls may become
inadequate because of changes in conditions, or that the degree
of compliance with the policies or procedures may deteriorate.
In our opinion, Reynolds American Inc. maintained, in all
material respects, effective internal control over financial
reporting as of December 31, 2009, based on criteria
established in Internal Control Integrated
Framework issued by the Committee of Sponsoring
Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO).
We also have audited, in accordance with the standards of the
Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States), the
consolidated balance sheets of Reynolds American Inc. and
subsidiaries as of December 31, 2009 and 2008, and the
related consolidated statements of income, shareholders
equity and comprehensive income (loss), and cash flows for each
of the years in the three-year period ended December 31,
2009, and our report dated February 19, 2010, expressed an
unqualified opinion on those consolidated financial statements.
Greensboro, North Carolina
February 19, 2010
61
REYNOLDS
AMERICAN INC.
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF INCOME
(Dollars in Millions, Except Per Share Amounts)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For the Years Ended
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
Net
sales(1)
|
|
$
|
8,015
|
|
|
$
|
8,377
|
|
|
$
|
8,516
|
|
Net sales, related party
|
|
|
404
|
|
|
|
468
|
|
|
|
507
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net sales
|
|
|
8,419
|
|
|
|
8,845
|
|
|
|
9,023
|
|
Costs and expenses:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cost of products
sold(1)(2)(3)
|
|
|
4,485
|
|
|
|
4,863
|
|
|
|
4,960
|
|
Selling, general and administrative expenses
|
|
|
1,508
|
|
|
|
1,500
|
|
|
|
1,687
|
|
Amortization expense
|
|
|
28
|
|
|
|
22
|
|
|
|
23
|
|
Restructuring charge
|
|
|
56
|
|
|
|
90
|
|
|
|
|
|
Trademark impairment charges
|
|
|
567
|
|
|
|
318
|
|
|
|
65
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating income
|
|
|
1,775
|
|
|
|
2,052
|
|
|
|
2,288
|
|
Interest and debt expense
|
|
|
251
|
|
|
|
275
|
|
|
|
338
|
|
Interest income
|
|
|
(19
|
)
|
|
|
(60
|
)
|
|
|
(134
|
)
|
Gain on termination of joint venture
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(328
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
Other expense, net
|
|
|
9
|
|
|
|
37
|
|
|
|
11
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income before income taxes and extraordinary item
|
|
|
1,534
|
|
|
|
2,128
|
|
|
|
2,073
|
|
Provision for income taxes
|
|
|
572
|
|
|
|
790
|
|
|
|
766
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income before extraordinary item
|
|
|
962
|
|
|
|
1,338
|
|
|
|
1,307
|
|
Extraordinary item gain on acquisition
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income
|
|
$
|
962
|
|
|
$
|
1,338
|
|
|
$
|
1,308
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Basic income per share:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income before extraordinary item
|
|
$
|
3.30
|
|
|
$
|
4.56
|
|
|
$
|
4.43
|
|
Extraordinary item
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income
|
|
$
|
3.30
|
|
|
$
|
4.56
|
|
|
$
|
4.43
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Diluted income per share:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income before extraordinary item
|
|
$
|
3.30
|
|
|
$
|
4.56
|
|
|
$
|
4.43
|
|
Extraordinary item
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income
|
|
$
|
3.30
|
|
|
$
|
4.56
|
|
|
$
|
4.43
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dividends declared per share
|
|
$
|
3.45
|
|
|
$
|
3.40
|
|
|
$
|
3.20
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Excludes excise taxes of $3,927 million,
$1,890 million and $2,026 million for the years ended
December 31, 2009, 2008 and 2007, respectively. |
|
(2) |
|
Includes Master Settlement Agreement, referred to as MSA, and
other state settlement agreements with the states of
Mississippi, Florida, Texas and Minnesota, together with the MSA
collectively referred to as the State Settlement Agreements,
expense of $2,540 million, $2,703 million and
$2,821 million for the years ended December 31, 2009,
2008 and 2007, respectively. |
|
(3) |
|
Includes federal tobacco quota buyout expenses of
$240 million, $249 million and $255 million for
the years ended December 31, 2009, 2008 and 2007,
respectively. |
See Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements
62
REYNOLDS
AMERICAN INC.
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS
(Dollars in Millions)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For the Years Ended
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
Cash flows from (used in) operating activities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income
|
|
$
|
962
|
|
|
$
|
1,338
|
|
|
$
|
1,308
|
|
Adjustments to reconcile to net cash flows from (used in)
continuing operating activities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Depreciation and amortization
|
|
|
144
|
|
|
|
142
|
|
|
|
143
|
|
Gain on termination of joint venture
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(328
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
Restructuring charge, net of cash payments
|
|
|
7
|
|
|
|
75
|
|
|
|
(12
|
)
|
Trademark impairment charges
|
|
|
567
|
|
|
|
318
|
|
|
|
65
|
|
Deferred income tax expense
|
|
|
(154
|
)
|
|
|
16
|
|
|
|
69
|
|
Other changes that provided (used) cash:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accounts and other receivables
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(27
|
)
|
|
|
8
|
|
Inventories
|
|
|
(49
|
)
|
|
|
26
|
|
|
|
(41
|
)
|
Related party, net
|
|
|
2
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(47
|
)
|
Accounts payable
|
|
|
(10
|
)
|
|
|
(12
|
)
|
|
|
(57
|
)
|
Accrued liabilities including income taxes and other working
capital
|
|
|
(191
|
)
|
|
|
(67
|
)
|
|
|
(72
|
)
|
Litigation bonds
|
|
|
(23
|
)
|
|
|
5
|
|
|
|
94
|
|
Tobacco settlement
|
|
|
291
|
|
|
|
(125
|
)
|
|
|
205
|
|
Pension and postretirement
|
|
|
(181
|
)
|
|
|
(88
|
)
|
|
|
(328
|
)
|
Other, net
|
|
|
89
|
|
|
|
42
|
|
|
|
(4
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash flows from operating activities
|
|
|
1,454
|
|
|
|
1,315
|
|
|
|
1,331
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash flows from (used in) investing activities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Purchases of short-term investments
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(56
|
)
|
|
|
(3,764
|
)
|
Proceeds from settlement of short-term investments
|
|
|
19
|
|
|
|
238
|
|
|
|
4,655
|
|
Proceeds from settlement of long-term investments
|
|
|
6
|
|
|
|
8
|
|
|
|
|
|
Capital expenditures
|
|
|
(141
|
)
|
|
|
(113
|
)
|
|
|
(142
|
)
|
Acquisition, net of cash acquired
|
|
|
(43
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(3
|
)
|
Distributions from equity investees
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
27
|
|
|
|
15
|
|
Net proceeds from sale of fixed assets
|
|
|
11
|
|
|
|
8
|
|
|
|
3
|
|
Proceeds from termination of joint venture
|
|
|
24
|
|
|
|
164
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other, net
|
|
|
1
|
|
|
|
2
|
|
|
|
(1
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash flows from (used in) investing activities
|
|
|
(123
|
)
|
|
|
278
|
|
|
|
763
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash flows from (used in) financing activities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dividends paid on common stock
|
|
|
(991
|
)
|
|
|
(999
|
)
|
|
|
(916
|
)
|
Repurchase of common stock
|
|
|
(5
|
)
|
|
|
(210
|
)
|
|
|
(60
|
)
|
Repayments of long-term debt
|
|
|
(200
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(329
|
)
|
Repayment of term loan
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1,542
|
)
|
Proceeds from issuance of long-term debt
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,547
|
|
Deferred debt issuance costs
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(15
|
)
|
Other, net
|
|
|
4
|
|
|
|
3
|
|
|
|
3
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash flows used in financing activities
|
|
|
(1,192
|
)
|
|
|
(1,206
|
)
|
|
|
(1,312
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Effect of exchange rate changes on cash and cash equivalents
|
|
|
6
|
|
|
|
(24
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net change in cash and cash equivalents
|
|
|
145
|
|
|
|
363
|
|
|
|
782
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents at beginning of year
|
|
|
2,578
|
|
|
|
2,215
|
|
|
|
1,433
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents at end of year
|
|
$
|
2,723
|
|
|
$
|
2,578
|
|
|
$
|
2,215
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income taxes paid, net of refunds
|
|
$
|
709
|
|
|
$
|
846
|
|
|
$
|
655
|
|
Interest paid
|
|
$
|
245
|
|
|
$
|
268
|
|
|
$
|
334
|
|
See Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements
63
REYNOLDS
AMERICAN INC.
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS
(Dollars in Millions)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
Assets
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Current assets:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents
|
|
$
|
2,723
|
|
|
$
|
2,578
|
|
Short-term investments
|
|
|
4
|
|
|
|
23
|
|
Accounts receivable
|
|
|
109
|
|
|
|
84
|
|
Accounts receivable, related party
|
|
|
96
|
|
|
|
91
|
|
Notes receivable
|
|
|
36
|
|
|
|
35
|
|
Other receivables
|
|
|
15
|
|
|
|
37
|
|
Inventories
|
|
|
1,219
|
|
|
|
1,170
|
|
Deferred income taxes, net
|
|
|
956
|
|
|
|
838
|
|
Prepaid expenses and other
|
|
|
337
|
|
|
|
163
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total current assets
|
|
|
5,495
|
|
|
|
5,019
|
|
Property, plant and equipment, at cost:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Land and land improvements
|
|
|
88
|
|
|
|
95
|
|
Buildings and leasehold improvements
|
|
|
661
|
|
|
|
692
|
|
Machinery and equipment
|
|
|
1,759
|
|
|
|
1,756
|
|
Construction-in-process
|
|
|
87
|
|
|
|
37
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total property, plant and equipment
|
|
|
2,595
|
|
|
|
2,580
|
|
Less accumulated depreciation
|
|
|
1,570
|
|
|
|
1,549
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Property, plant and equipment, net
|
|
|
1,025
|
|
|
|
1,031
|
|
Trademarks and other intangible assets, net of accumulated
amortization (2009 $647; 2008 $619)
|
|
|
2,718
|
|
|
|
3,270
|
|
Goodwill
|
|
|
8,185
|
|
|
|
8,174
|
|
Other assets and deferred charges
|
|
|
586
|
|
|
|
660
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
18,009
|
|
|
$
|
18,154
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Liabilities and shareholders equity
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Current liabilities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accounts payable
|
|
$
|
196
|
|
|
$
|
206
|
|
Tobacco settlement accruals
|
|
|
2,611
|
|
|
|
2,321
|
|
Due to related party
|
|
|
3
|
|
|
|
3
|
|
Deferred revenue, related party
|
|
|
57
|
|
|
|
50
|
|
Current maturities of long-term debt
|
|
|
300
|
|
|
|
200
|
|
Other current liabilities
|
|
|
1,173
|
|
|
|
1,143
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total current liabilities
|
|
|
4,340
|
|
|
|
3,923
|
|
Long-term debt (less current maturities)
|
|
|
4,136
|
|
|
|
4,486
|
|
Deferred income taxes, net
|
|
|
441
|
|
|
|
282
|
|
Long-term retirement benefits (less current portion)
|
|
|
2,218
|
|
|
|
2,836
|
|
Other noncurrent liabilities
|
|
|
376
|
|
|
|
390
|
|
Commitments and contingencies:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Shareholders equity:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Common stock (shares issued: 2009 291,424,051;
2008 291,450,762)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Paid-in capital
|
|
|
8,498
|
|
|
|
8,463
|
|
Accumulated deficit
|
|
|
(579
|
)
|
|
|
(531
|
)
|
Accumulated other comprehensive loss (Defined
benefit pension and post-retirement plans: 2009
$(1,376) and 2008 $(1,643), net of tax)
|
|
|
(1,421
|
)
|
|
|
(1,695
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total shareholders equity
|
|
|
6,498
|
|
|
|
6,237
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
18,009
|
|
|
$
|
18,154
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
See Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements
64
REYNOLDS
AMERICAN INC.
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF SHAREHOLDERS EQUITY AND
COMPREHENSIVE INCOME (LOSS)
(Dollars in Millions, Except Per Share Amounts)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accumulated
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Common
|
|
|
Paid-In
|
|
|
Accumulated
|
|
|
Comprehensive
|
|
|
Shareholders
|
|
|
Comprehensive
|
|
|
|
Stock
|
|
|
Capital
|
|
|
Deficit
|
|
|
Loss
|
|
|
Equity
|
|
|
Income (Loss)
|
|
|
Balance at December 31, 2006
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
8,702
|
|
|
$
|
(1,241
|
)
|
|
$
|
(418
|
)
|
|
$
|
7,043
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cumulative effect of change in accounting principle
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Adjusted balance as of January 1, 2007
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
8,702
|
|
|
|
(1,236
|
)
|
|
|
(418
|
)
|
|
|
7,048
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,308
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,308
|
|
|
$
|
1,308
|
|
Retirement benefits, net of $72 tax expense
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
112
|
|
|
|
112
|
|
|
|
112
|
|
Unrealized loss on investments, net of $8 tax benefit
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(11
|
)
|
|
|
(11
|
)
|
|
|
(11
|
)
|
Cumulative translation adjustment and other
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3
|
|
|
|
3
|
|
|
|
3
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total comprehensive income
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
1,412
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dividends $3.20 per share
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(945
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(945
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
Equity incentive award plan and stock-based compensation
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
9
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
9
|
|
|
|
|
|
Common stock repurchased
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(60
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(60
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
Excess tax benefit on stock-based compensation plans
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance at December 31, 2007
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
8,653
|
|
|
|
(873
|
)
|
|
|
(314
|
)
|
|
|
7,466
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,338
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,338
|
|
|
$
|
1,338
|
|
Retirement benefits, net of $884 tax benefit
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1,337
|
)
|
|
|
(1,337
|
)
|
|
|
(1,337
|
)
|
Unrealized loss on investments, net of $20 tax benefit
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(30
|
)
|
|
|
(30
|
)
|
|
|
(30
|
)
|
Cumulative translation adjustment and other, net of $6 tax
benefit
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(14
|
)
|
|
|
(14
|
)
|
|
|
(14
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total comprehensive loss
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
(43
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dividends $3.40 per share
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(996
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(996
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
Equity incentive award plan and stock-based compensation
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
18
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
18
|
|
|
|
|
|
Common stock repurchased
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(210
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(210
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
Excess tax benefit on stock-based compensation plans
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance at December 31, 2008
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
8,463
|
|
|
|
(531
|
)
|
|
|
(1,695
|
)
|
|
|
6,237
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
962
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
962
|
|
|
$
|
962
|
|
Retirement benefits, net of $177 tax expense
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
267
|
|
|
|
267
|
|
|
|
267
|
|
Unrealized gain on investments, net of $2 tax expense
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4
|
|
|
|
4
|
|
|
|
4
|
|
Cumulative translation adjustment and other, net of $7 tax
expense
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3
|
|
|
|
3
|
|
|
|
3
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total comprehensive income
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
1,236
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dividends $3.45 per share
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1,010
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1,010
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
Equity incentive award plan and stock-based compensation
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
38
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
38
|
|
|
|
|
|
Common stock repurchased
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(5
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(5
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
Excess tax benefit on stock-based compensation plans
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance at December 31, 2009
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
8,498
|
|
|
$
|
(579
|
)
|
|
$
|
(1,421
|
)
|
|
$
|
6,498
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
See Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements
65
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
|
|
Note 1
|
Business
and Summary of Significant Accounting Policies
|
Overview
The consolidated financial statements include the accounts of
Reynolds American Inc., referred to as RAI, and its wholly owned
subsidiaries. RAIs wholly owned subsidiaries include R. J.
Reynolds Tobacco Company; Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Company,
Inc., referred to as Santa Fe; Lane, Limited, referred to
as Lane; Conwood Holdings Inc.; and American Snuff Company, LLC,
formerly known as Conwood Company, LLC, and Rosswil LLC,
collectively referred to as the Conwood companies.
RAI was incorporated as a holding company in the state of North
Carolina on January 5, 2004, and its common stock is listed
on the NYSE under the symbol RAI. RAI was created to
facilitate the transactions on July 30, 2004, to combine
the U.S. assets, liabilities and operations of
Brown & Williamson Holdings, Inc., referred to as
B&W, an indirect, wholly owned subsidiary of British
American Tobacco p.l.c., referred to as BAT, with R. J. Reynolds
Tobacco Company, a wholly owned operating subsidiary of R.J.
Reynolds Tobacco Holdings, Inc., referred to as RJR. These
July 30, 2004, transactions generally are referred to as
the B&W business combination.
References to RJR Tobacco prior to July 30, 2004, relate to
R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, a New Jersey corporation and a
wholly owned subsidiary of RJR. References to RJR Tobacco on and
subsequent to July 30, 2004, relate to the combined
U.S. assets, liabilities and operations of B&W and R.
J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, a North Carolina corporation.
RAIs reportable operating segments are RJR Tobacco and
Conwood. The RJR Tobacco segment consists of the primary
operations of R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company. The Conwood
segment consists of Conwood Holdings, Inc., the primary
operations of the Conwood companies and Lane. Santa Fe and
Niconovum AB, among other RAI subsidiaries, are included in All
Other. The segments were identified based on how RAIs
chief operating decision maker allocates resources and assesses
performance. RAIs wholly owned operating subsidiaries have
entered into intercompany agreements for products or services
with other RAI operating subsidiaries. As a result, certain
activities of an operating subsidiary may be included in a
different segment of RAI.
RAIs operating subsidiaries primarily conduct their
business in the United States.
Basis of
Presentation
The preparation of the consolidated financial statements in
conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the
United States of America, referred to as GAAP, requires
estimates and assumptions to be made that affect the reported
amounts in the consolidated financial statements and
accompanying notes. Volatile credit and equity markets, changes
to regulatory and legal environments, and consumer spending may
affect the uncertainty inherent in such estimates and
assumptions. Actual results could differ from those estimates.
Certain reclassifications were made to conform prior years
financial statements to the current presentation.
The equity method is used to account for investments in
businesses that RAI does not control, but has the ability to
significantly influence operating and financial policies. The
cost method is used to account for investments in which RAI does
not have the ability to significantly influence operating and
financial policies. RAI has no investments in entities greater
than 20% for which it accounts by the cost method, and has no
investments in entities greater than 50% for which it accounts
by the equity method. All material intercompany balances have
been eliminated.
All dollar amounts, other than per share amounts, are presented
in millions, except for amounts set forth in note 14 and as
otherwise noted.
Cash and
Cash Equivalents
Cash balances are recorded net of book overdrafts when a bank
right-of-offset
exists. All other book overdrafts are recorded in accounts
payable. Cash equivalents may include money market funds,
commercial paper and time deposits in major institutions to
minimize investment risk. As short-term, highly liquid
investments readily
66
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
convertible to known amounts of cash, with remaining maturities
of three months or less at the time of purchase, cash
equivalents have carrying values that approximate fair values.
Debt securities included in cash equivalents are classified and
accounted for as
held-to-maturity.
The appropriate classification of cash equivalents is determined
at the time of purchase and the classification is reassessed at
each reporting date.
Fair
Value Measurement
RAI determines fair value of assets and liabilities using a fair
value hierarchy that distinguishes between market participant
assumptions developed based on market data obtained from sources
independent of the reporting entity, and the reporting
entitys own assumptions about market participant
assumptions developed based on the best information available in
the circumstances.
Fair value is the price that would be received to sell an asset
or paid to transfer a liability in an orderly transaction
between market participants at the measurement date, essentially
an exit price.
The levels of the fair value hierarchy are:
Level 1: inputs are quoted prices, unadjusted, in active
markets for identical assets or liabilities that the reporting
entity has the ability to access at the measurement date.
Level 2: inputs are other than quoted prices included
within Level 1 that are observable for the asset or
liability, either directly or indirectly. A Level 2 input
must be observable for substantially the full term of the asset
or liability.
Level 3: inputs are unobservable and reflect the reporting
entitys own assumptions about the assumptions that market
participants would use in pricing the asset or liability.
Investments
Marketable securities are classified as
available-for-sale
and are carried at fair value, with related unrealized gains and
losses deemed temporarily impaired reported, net of tax, as
accumulated other comprehensive loss. All losses deemed to be
other than temporarily impaired are recorded in earnings. As of
December 31, 2009, RAI held investments primarily in money
market funds, auction rate securities, a mortgage-backed
security and a marketable equity security. Certain money market
funds are classified as short-term investments due to the
liquidity restrictions by the fund managers preventing immediate
withdrawal.
Adverse changes in financial markets caused the auction rate
securities and the mortgage-backed security to revalue lower
than carrying value and become less liquid. The funds associated
with the auction rate securities and the mortgage-backed
security will not be accessible until a successful auction
occurs or a buyer is found. These investments are evaluated on a
quarterly basis to determine if a credit loss has been incurred
and the investment is other than temporarily impaired. For these
investments, RAI uses assumptions about future cash flows and
risk-adjusted discount rates to determine fair value. To assess
credit losses, RAI uses historical default rates, debt ratings,
credit default swap spreads and recovery rates to determine if
credit losses have been incurred. RAI has the intent and ability
to hold these investments for a period of time sufficient to
allow for the recovery in market value.
Inventories
Inventories are stated at the lower of cost or market. The cost
of tobacco inventories is determined principally under the
last-in,
first-out, or LIFO, method and is calculated at the end of each
year. The cost of work in process and finished goods includes
materials, direct labor, variable costs and overhead, and full
absorption of fixed manufacturing overhead. Stocks of tobacco,
which have an operating cycle that exceeds 12 months due to
aging requirements, are classified as current assets, consistent
with recognized industry practice.
Long-lived
Assets
Long-lived assets, such as property, plant and equipment,
trademarks and other intangible assets with finite lives, are
reviewed for impairment whenever events or changes in
circumstances indicate that the book value of the
67
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
asset may not be recoverable. Impairment of the carrying value
of long-lived assets would be indicated if the best estimate of
future undiscounted cash flows expected to be generated by the
asset grouping is less than its carrying value. If an impairment
is indicated, any loss is measured as the difference between
estimated fair value and carrying value and is recognized in
operating income.
Property,
Plant and Equipment
Property, plant and equipment are recorded at cost and
depreciated using the straight-line method over the estimated
useful lives of the assets. Useful lives range from 20 to
50 years for buildings and improvements, and from 3 to
30 years for machinery and equipment. The cost and related
accumulated depreciation of assets sold or retired are removed
from the accounts and the gain or loss on disposition is
recognized in operating income.
Intangible
Assets
Intangible assets include goodwill, trademarks and other
intangible assets and are capitalized when acquired. The
determination of fair value involves considerable estimates and
judgment. In particular, the fair value of a reporting unit
involves, among other things, developing forecasts of future
cash flows, determining an appropriate discount rate, and when
goodwill impairment is implied, determining the fair value of
individual assets and liabilities, including unrecorded
intangibles. Although RAI believes it has based its impairment
testing and impairment charges on reasonable estimates and
assumptions, the use of different estimates and assumptions
could result in materially different results. Generally, if the
current competitive or regulatory environment worsens or
RAIs operating companies strategic initiatives
adversely affect their financial performance, the fair value of
goodwill, trademarks and other intangible assets could be
impaired in future periods. Trademarks and other intangible
assets with indefinite lives are not amortized, but are tested
for impairment annually, in the fourth quarter, and more
frequently if events and circumstances indicate that the asset
might be impaired.
Accounting
for Derivative Instruments and Hedging Activities
RAI measures derivative instruments, including certain
derivative instruments embedded in other contracts, at fair
value and records them in the balance sheet as either an asset
or liability. Changes in fair value of derivatives are recorded
in earnings unless hedge accounting criteria are met. For
derivatives designated as fair value hedges, the changes in fair
value of both the derivative instrument and the hedged item are
recorded in earnings. For derivatives designated as cash flow
hedges, the effective portions of changes in the fair value of
the derivative are reported in accumulated other comprehensive
loss. The ineffective portions of hedges are recognized in
earnings in the current period. At December 31, 2009, RAI
had no derivative instruments classified as hedges.
RAI formally assesses at inception of the hedge and on an
ongoing basis, whether each derivative is highly effective in
offsetting changes in fair values or cash flows of the hedged
item, and formally designates as a hedge those derivatives that
qualify for hedge accounting. If it is determined that a
derivative is not highly effective as a hedge or if a derivative
ceases to be a highly effective hedge, RAI will discontinue
hedge accounting prospectively. Any unrecognized gain or loss
will be deferred and recognized into income as the formerly
hedged item is recognized in earnings.
Software
Costs
Computer software and software development costs incurred in
connection with developing or obtaining computer software for
internal use that has an extended useful life are capitalized.
These costs are amortized over their estimated useful life,
which is typically five years or less. During 2009 and 2008,
costs of $21 million and $25 million, respectively,
were capitalized or included in construction in process. At
December 31, 2009, and December 31, 2008, the unamortized
balance was $73 million and $81 million, respectively.
Software amortization expense was $26 million,
$24 million and $16 million for the years ended
December 31, 2009, 2008 and 2007, respectively.
68
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
Revenue
Recognition
Revenue from product sales is recognized when persuasive
evidence of an arrangement exists, delivery has occurred, the
sellers price to the buyer is fixed or determinable, and
collectibility is reasonably assured. These criteria are
generally met when title and risk of loss pass to the customer.
Payments received in advance of shipments are deferred and
recorded in other accrued liabilities until shipment occurs.
Certain sales of leaf to a related party, considered as
bill-and-hold
for accounting purposes, are recorded as deferred revenue when
all of the above revenue recognition criteria are met except
delivery, postponed at the customers request. Revenue is
subsequently recognized upon delivery.
Shipping and handling costs are classified as cost of products
sold. Net sales include certain sales incentives, including
coupons and buydowns.
Advertising
and Research and Development
Advertising costs, which are expensed as incurred, were
$103 million, $127 million and $165 million for
the years ended December 31, 2009, 2008 and 2007,
respectively. Research and development costs, which are expensed
as incurred, were $68 million, $59 million and
$57 million for the years ended December 31, 2009,
2008 and 2007, respectively.
Income
Taxes
Income taxes are accounted for under the asset and liability
method. Deferred tax assets and liabilities are recognized for
the future tax consequences attributable to differences between
the financial statement carrying amounts of existing assets and
liabilities and their respective tax bases and operating loss
and tax credit carryforwards. Deferred tax assets and
liabilities are measured using enacted tax rates expected to
apply to taxable income in the years in which those temporary
differences are expected to be recovered or settled. The effect
on deferred tax assets and liabilities of a change in tax rates
is recognized in income in the period that includes the
enactment date. Interest and penalties related to uncertain tax
positions are accounted for as tax expense. Federal income taxes
for RAI and its subsidiaries are calculated on a consolidated
basis. State income taxes for RAI and its subsidiaries are
primarily calculated on a separate return basis.
RAI accounts for uncertain tax positions which require that a
position taken or expected to be taken in a tax return be
recognized in the financial statements when it is more likely
than not (a likelihood of more than 50 percent) that the
position would be sustained upon examination by tax authorities.
A recognized tax position is then measured at the largest amount
of benefit that is greater than 50 percent likely of being
realized upon ultimate settlement.
Stock-Based
Compensation
Stock-based compensation recognizes all forms of share-based
payment awards, including shares issued to employees under stock
options, restricted stock, restricted stock units and stock
appreciation rights.
Pension
and Postretirement
Pension and postretirement benefits require balance sheet
recognition of the net asset or liability for the overfunded or
underfunded status of defined benefit pension and other
postretirement benefit plans, on a
plan-by-plan
basis, and recognition of changes in the funded status in the
year in which the changes occur. These changes are reported in
accumulated other comprehensive loss, as a separate component of
shareholders equity.
Recognized gains or losses are annual changes in the amount of
either the benefit obligation or the market-related value of
plan assets resulting from experience different from that
assumed or from changes in assumptions. The minimum amortization
of unrecognized gains or losses was included in either pension
expense or in the postretirement benefit cost. Prior service
costs, which are changes in benefit obligations due to plan
amendments, are amortized on a straight-line basis over the
average remaining service period for active employees. The
market-related value of plan assets recognizes changes in fair
value in a systematic and rational manner over five years.
69
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
Litigation
Contingencies
RAI discloses information concerning litigation for which an
unfavorable outcome is more than remote. RAI and its
subsidiaries record their legal expenses and other litigation
costs and related administrative costs as selling, general and
administrative expenses as those costs are incurred. RAI and its
subsidiaries will record any loss related to litigation at such
time as an unfavorable outcome becomes probable and the amount
can be reasonably estimated. When the reasonable estimate is a
range, the recorded loss will be the best estimate within the
range. If no amount in the range is a better estimate than any
other amount, the minimum amount of the range will be recorded.
Recently
Adopted Accounting Pronouncements
The adoption of the following accounting guidance had no
material impact on RAIs consolidated results of
operations, cash flows or financial position:
|
|
|
|
|
Effective January 1, 2009, guidance for the measurements
and disclosure of fair value for nonfinancial assets and
nonfinancial liabilities. This new guidance does not require any
new fair value measurements but provides a definition of fair
value, establishes a framework for measuring fair value and
expands disclosure about fair value measurements. It also
establishes a fair value hierarchy that distinguishes between
independent and observable inputs and unobservable inputs based
on the best information available.
|
|
|
|
Effective January 1, 2009, authoritative GAAP that
addresses whether instruments granted in share-based payment
transactions are participating securities prior to vesting and,
therefore, need to be included in the earnings allocation in
computing earnings per share. As a result, unvested restricted
shares outstanding under the Reynolds American Inc. Long-Term
Incentive Plan, referred to as the LTIP, are included in basic
EPS calculations. Comparative earnings per share have been
adjusted retrospectively to conform to the provisions of this
authoritative GAAP, which reduced basic and diluted net income
per share by $0.02 and $0.01, respectively for 2008, and reduced
basic income per share by $0.01 for 2007.
|
|
|
|
Effective January 1, 2009, guidance for the qualitative
disclosures about the objectives and strategies for using
derivatives; quantitative data about the fair value of, and
gains and losses on, derivative contracts; and details of
credit-risk-related contingent features in hedged positions.
This guidance also seeks enhanced disclosure around derivative
instruments in financial statements and how hedges affect an
entitys financial position, financial performance and cash
flows.
|
|
|
|
Effective June 30, 2009, additional clarification for
estimating fair value when the volume and level of activity for
the asset and liability have significantly decreased, as well as
clarification on identifying circumstances that indicate a
transaction is not orderly.
|
|
|
|
Effective June 30, 2009, additional clarification to make
other-than-temporary
impairment guidance more operational and to improve the
financial statement presentation of such impairments.
|
|
|
|
Effective June 30, 2009, guidance requiring disclosures
about fair value of financial instruments in interim financial
statements as well as in annual financial statements.
|
|
|
|
Effective June 30, 2009, authoritative GAAP that
establishes general standards of accounting for and disclosure
of events that occur after the balance sheet date, but before
financial statements are issued or are available to be issued.
|
|
|
|
Effective September 30, 2009, additional clarification on
the measurement of liabilities at fair value when no observable
data is available.
|
In June 2009, the Financial Accounting Standards Board, referred
to as FASB, issued its Accounting Standards Codification,
referred to as ASC. The ASC became the source of authoritative
GAAP recognized by the FASB to be applied by nongovernmental
entities, effective for financial statements issued for interim
and annual periods ending after September 15, 2009.
70
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
Subsequent
Events
RAI has evaluated events that occurred subsequent to
December 31, 2009, through the financial statement issue
date of February 19, 2010, and determined there were no
material recordable or reportable subsequent events, except as
disclosed in note 14.
|
|
Note 2
|
Fair
Value Measurement
|
Financial assets (liabilities) carried at fair value as of
December 31, 2009, were as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Level 1
|
|
Level 2
|
|
Level 3
|
|
Total
|
|
Money market funds
|
|
$
|
2,662
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
4
|
|
|
$
|
2,666
|
|
Auction rate securities corporate credit risk
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
30
|
|
|
|
30
|
|
Auction rate securities financial insurance companies
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
17
|
|
|
|
17
|
|
Mortgage-backed security
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
16
|
|
|
|
16
|
|
Marketable equity security
|
|
|
19
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
19
|
|
Assets held in grantor trusts
|
|
|
12
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
12
|
|
Interest rate swaps fixed to floating rate
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
182
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
182
|
|
Interest rate swaps floating to fixed rate
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
57
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
57
|
|
Interest rate swaps floating to fixed rate
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(2
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(2
|
)
|
Financial assets carried at fair value as of December 31,
2008, were as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Level 1
|
|
Level 2
|
|
Level 3
|
|
Total
|
|
Money market funds
|
|
$
|
2,269
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
23
|
|
|
$
|
2,292
|
|
Auction rate securities corporate credit risk
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
44
|
|
|
|
44
|
|
Auction rate securities financial insurance companies
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
15
|
|
|
|
15
|
|
Mortgage-backed security
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
21
|
|
|
|
21
|
|
Assets held in grantor trusts
|
|
|
16
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
16
|
|
Interest rate swaps fixed to floating rate
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
287
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
287
|
|
The fair value of the interest rate swaps, classified as
Level 2, utilized a market approach model using the
notional amount of the interest rate swap multiplied by the
observable inputs of time to maturity, interest rates and credit
spreads. See note 13 for additional information on interest
rate swaps.
The fair value of the money market funds, classified as
Level 3, utilized an income approach model and was based
upon expected future cash flows from accumulated cash in the
fund and future maturities of the remaining securities held in
the fund. During 2009, redemptions of $5 million were
received from the Reserve Fund-Primary Fund and redemptions of
$14 million were received from the Reserve
Fund-International Liquidity Fund. No current valuations had
been issued by either fund, and RAI was unable to identify a
similar fund that carried identical holdings. As a result, the
observable transactions and pricing were not current. The funds
did issue a detailed listing of the securities that were held
and not matured, as well as their face value and maturity date.
This observable data, along with unobservable factors, such as
assumptions about fund liquidation of accumulated cash and the
collectability of the outstanding underlying securities, were
used to determine the fair value of the funds as of
December 31, 2009.
The fair value of the auction rate securities, either related to
certain financial insurance companies or linked to the credit
risk of a diverse range of corporations, including, but not
limited to, manufacturing, financial and insurance sectors,
classified as Level 3, utilized an income approach model
and was based upon the weighted average present value of future
cash payments, given the probability of certain events occurring
within the market. RAI considers the market for auction rate
securities to be inactive. The income approach model utilized
observable inputs, including LIBOR-based interest rate curves,
corporate credit spreads and corporate ratings/market
valuations. Additionally, unobservable factors incorporated into
the model included default probability assumptions,
71
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
recovery potential and how these factors changed as ratings on
the underlying collateral migrated from one level to another.
The fair value for the mortgage-backed security, classified as
Level 3, utilized a market approach and was based upon the
calculation of an overall weighted average valuation, derived
from the actual, or modeled, market pricing of the specific
collateral, depending on availability. The market approach
utilized actual pricing inputs when observable and modeled
pricing when unobservable. RAI has deemed the market for this
security to be inactive.
The changes in the Level 3 investments as of
December 31, 2009, were as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Money Market Funds
|
|
|
Mortgage-Backed Security
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gross
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Estimated
|
|
|
|
|
|
Unrealized
|
|
|
Estimated
|
|
|
|
Cost
|
|
|
Fair Value
|
|
|
Cost
|
|
|
(Loss) Gain
|
|
|
Fair Value
|
|
|
Balance as of January 1, 2009
|
|
$
|
23
|
|
|
$
|
23
|
|
|
$
|
37
|
|
|
$
|
(16
|
)
|
|
$
|
21
|
|
Unrealized gains
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
|
|
|
|
1
|
|
Settlements
|
|
|
(19
|
)
|
|
|
(19
|
)
|
|
|
(6
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(6
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance as of December 31, 2009
|
|
$
|
4
|
|
|
$
|
4
|
|
|
$
|
31
|
|
|
$
|
(15
|
)
|
|
$
|
16
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Auction Rate Securities
|
|
|
Auction Rate Securities
|
|
|
|
Corporate Credit Risk
|
|
|
Financial Insurance Companies
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gross
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gross
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Unrealized
|
|
|
Estimated
|
|
|
|
|
|
Unrealized
|
|
|
Estimated
|
|
|
|
Cost
|
|
|
Loss
|
|
|
Fair Value
|
|
|
Cost
|
|
|
(Loss) Gain
|
|
|
Fair Value
|
|
|
Balance as of January 1, 2009
|
|
$
|
95
|
|
|
$
|
(51
|
)
|
|
$
|
44
|
|
|
$
|
17
|
|
|
$
|
(2
|
)
|
|
$
|
15
|
|
Unrealized (losses) gains
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(14
|
)
|
|
|
(14
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2
|
|
|
|
2
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance as of December 31, 2009
|
|
$
|
95
|
|
|
$
|
(65
|
)
|
|
$
|
30
|
|
|
$
|
17
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
17
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The fair value of the trademarks measured on a nonrecurring
basis, classified as Level 3, represent certain trademarks,
for which impairment during the first and fourth quarters of
2009 reduced their book value to fair value. The fair value
determinations utilized an income approach model and were based
on a discounted cash flow valuation model under a relief from
royalty methodology. This approach utilized unobservable
factors, such as royalty rate, projected revenues and a discount
rate, applied to the estimated cash flows. The determination of
the discount rate was based on a cost of equity model, using a
risk-free rate, adjusted by a stock beta-adjusted risk premium
and a size premium. See note 3 for additional information
with respect to the event during the first quarter of 2009 that
required impairment testing in addition to the annual testing of
trademarks and the assumptions used therefor, as well as the
consolidated amount of trademarks as of December 31, 2009.
The fair value of nonfinancial assets was not measured as of
December 31, 2009. Nonfinancial assets measured at fair
value on a nonrecurring basis were as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Level 1
|
|
Level 2
|
|
Level 3
|
|
Total
|
|
Total Loss
|
|
Trademarks, March 31, 2009
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
875
|
|
|
$
|
875
|
|
|
$
|
(453
|
)
|
Trademarks, November 30, 2009
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
80
|
|
|
$
|
80
|
|
|
$
|
(114
|
)
|
72
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
|
|
Note 3
|
Intangible
Assets
|
There were no changes in goodwill in 2008. The changes in the
carrying amounts of goodwill by segment as of December 31,
2009, were as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
RJR
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tobacco
|
|
|
Conwood
|
|
|
All Other
|
|
|
Consolidated
|
|
|
Balance as of December 31, 2008
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Goodwill
|
|
$
|
9,065
|
|
|
$
|
2,650
|
|
|
$
|
224
|
|
|
$
|
11,939
|
|
Less: Accumulated impairment losses
|
|
|
(3,763
|
)
|
|
|
(2
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(3,765
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net goodwill balance as of December 31, 2008
|
|
|
5,302
|
|
|
|
2,648
|
|
|
|
224
|
|
|
|
8,174
|
|
Balance as of December 31, 2009
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Acquisition of Niconovum AB
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
11
|
|
|
|
11
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Goodwill
|
|
|
9,065
|
|
|
|
2,650
|
|
|
|
235
|
|
|
|
11,950
|
|
Less: Accumulated impairment losses
|
|
|
(3,763
|
)
|
|
|
(2
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(3,765
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net goodwill balance as December 31, 2009
|
|
$
|
5,302
|
|
|
$
|
2,648
|
|
|
$
|
235
|
|
|
$
|
8,185
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The changes in the carrying amounts of indefinite-lived
intangible assets by segment not subject to amortization during
the years ended December 31, 2009 and 2008, were as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
RJR Tobacco
|
|
|
Conwood
|
|
|
All Other
|
|
|
Consolidated
|
|
|
|
Trademarks
|
|
|
Other
|
|
|
Trademarks
|
|
|
Trademarks
|
|
|
Other
|
|
|
Trademarks
|
|
|
Other
|
|
|
Balance as of December 31, 2007
|
|
$
|
1,826
|
|
|
$
|
55
|
|
|
$
|
1,374
|
|
|
$
|
155
|
|
|
$
|
47
|
|
|
$
|
3,355
|
|
|
$
|
102
|
|
Impairment
|
|
|
(173
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(130
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(303
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
Acquisition
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
|
|
Transfer to finite-lived
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(22
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(22
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance as of December 31, 2008
|
|
|
1,653
|
|
|
|
55
|
|
|
|
1,222
|
|
|
|
155
|
|
|
|
48
|
|
|
|
3,030
|
|
|
|
103
|
|
Impairment
|
|
|
(490
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(70
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(560
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
Intersegment transfer
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
44
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(44
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Acquisition of Niconovum AB
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
43
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
43
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance as of December 31, 2009
|
|
$
|
1,163
|
|
|
$
|
99
|
|
|
$
|
1,152
|
|
|
$
|
155
|
|
|
$
|
47
|
|
|
$
|
2,470
|
|
|
$
|
146
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The changes in the carrying amounts of finite-lived intangible
assets by segment subject to amortization during the years ended
December 31, 2009 and 2008, were as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
RJR Tobacco
|
|
|
Conwood
|
|
|
Consolidated
|
|
|
|
Trademarks
|
|
|
Other
|
|
|
Trademarks
|
|
|
Trademarks
|
|
|
Other
|
|
|
Balance as of December 31, 2007
|
|
$
|
41
|
|
|
$
|
100
|
|
|
$
|
11
|
|
|
$
|
52
|
|
|
$
|
100
|
|
Amortization
|
|
|
(5
|
)
|
|
|
(16
|
)
|
|
|
(1
|
)
|
|
|
(6
|
)
|
|
|
(16
|
)
|
Impairment
|
|
|
(3
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(12
|
)
|
|
|
(15
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
Transferred from indefinite-lived
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
22
|
|
|
|
22
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance as of December 31, 2008
|
|
|
33
|
|
|
|
84
|
|
|
|
20
|
|
|
|
53
|
|
|
|
84
|
|
Amortization
|
|
|
(12
|
)
|
|
|
(15
|
)
|
|
|
(1
|
)
|
|
|
(13
|
)
|
|
|
(15
|
)
|
Impairment
|
|
|
(1
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(6
|
)
|
|
|
(7
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance as of December 31, 2009
|
|
$
|
20
|
|
|
$
|
69
|
|
|
$
|
13
|
|
|
$
|
33
|
|
|
$
|
69
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
73
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
Details of finite-lived intangible assets subject to
amortization as of December 31, 2009, were as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accumulated
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gross
|
|
|
Amortization
|
|
|
Net
|
|
|
Contract manufacturing agreements
|
|
$
|
151
|
|
|
$
|
82
|
|
|
$
|
69
|
|
Trademarks
|
|
|
95
|
|
|
|
62
|
|
|
|
33
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
246
|
|
|
$
|
144
|
|
|
$
|
102
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The estimated remaining amortization associated with
finite-lived intangible assets is expected to be expensed as
follows:
|
|
|
|
|
Year
|
|
Amount
|
|
|
2010
|
|
$
|
26
|
|
2011
|
|
|
23
|
|
2012
|
|
|
20
|
|
2013
|
|
|
16
|
|
2014
|
|
|
10
|
|
Thereafter
|
|
|
7
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
102
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
During the first quarter of 2009, President Obama signed into
law an increase of $0.62 in the federal excise tax per pack of
cigarettes, as well as significant tax increases on other
tobacco products, to fund expansion of the State Childrens
Health Insurance Program, referred to as the SCHIP. The tax
increases were effective April 1, 2009.
The increase in federal excise tax was expected to adversely
impact the net sales of RAIs operating subsidiaries. This
event was considered a triggering event and required the testing
for impairment of the carrying value of trademarks and goodwill
during the first quarter of 2009. As a result of this testing,
RJR Tobacco and Conwood recorded trademark impairment charges in
the first quarter of 2009. These charges were based on the
excess of certain brands carrying values over their
estimated fair values. The analysis of the fair value of
trademarks was based on estimates of fair value on an income
approach using a discounted cash flow valuation model under a
relief from royalty methodology. The relief from royalty model
includes the estimates of the royalty rate that a market
participant might assume, projected revenues and judgment
regarding the 10.50% discount rate applied to those estimated
cash flows. The determination of the discount rate was based on
a cost of equity model, using a risk-free rate, adjusted by a
stock beta-adjusted risk premium and a size premium.
The impairment testing of trademarks in the fourth quarters of
2009, 2008 and 2007, included modification to the previously
anticipated level of support among certain brands, and an
increased rate of decline in projected net sales of certain
brands, compared with that assumed in the prior year strategic
plan.
As a result of annual impairment testing, RJR Tobacco and
Conwood recorded trademark impairment charges during 2009, 2008
and 2007. Also, triggered by the reclassification of KOOL from a
growth brand to a support brand during the third quarter of
2008, RJR Tobacco completed impairment testing, and as a result,
recorded an impairment charge. These charges were based on the
excess of certain brands carrying values over their
estimated fair values using the present value of estimated
future cash flows assuming a discount rate of 10.50% in 2009,
2008 and 2007. The discount rate was determined by adjusting the
enterprise discount rate by an appropriate risk premium to
reflect a market rate risk.
These trademark impairment charges are reflected as decreases in
the carrying value of the trademarks in the consolidated balance
sheets as of December 31, 2009 and 2008, as trademark
impairment charges in the consolidated statements of income for
the years ended December 31, 2009, 2008 and 2007, and had
no impact on cash flows. In addition, certain brands that would
no longer receive marketing support indicated that a finite life
was probable. As a result, these brands are being amortized over
their remaining lives, which range from 3 to 19 years,
consistent with the pattern of economic benefits estimated to be
received.
74
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
For the impairment testing of the goodwill of RAIs
reporting units, each reporting units estimated fair value
was compared with its carrying value. A reporting unit is an
operating segment or one level below an operating segment. The
determination of estimated fair value of each reporting unit was
calculated primarily utilizing an income approach model, based
on the present value of the estimated future cash flows of the
reporting unit assuming a discount rate. The determination of
the discount rate was based on a weighted average cost of
capital and cost of equity, described above as utilized in the
trademark valuation. Additionally, the aggregate estimated fair
value of the reporting units, determined with the use of the
income approach model, was compared with RAIs market
capitalization. In considering RAIs market capitalization,
an estimated premium to reflect the fair value on a control
basis was applied. The estimated fair value of each reporting
unit, determined utilizing the income approach and RAIs
market capitalization, was substantially greater than its
respective carrying value.
Concurrent with the transfer of the management of tobacco
products sold to certain U.S. territories,
U.S. duty-free shops and U.S. overseas military bases,
from R. J. Reynolds Global Products Inc., referred to as GPI, to
RJR Tobacco on January 1, 2009, an indefinite-lived
intangible asset was transferred from All Other to RJR Tobacco.
On December 9, 2009, through an indirect subsidiary, RAI
completed its acquisition of all of the outstanding shares of
Niconovum AB, a Swedish-based nicotine replacement therapy
company, for approximately $43 million in cash. The
acquisition was treated as a purchase of the Niconovum AB net
assets for financial accounting purposes. The estimated fair
value of assets acquired, primarily indefinite-lived other
intangible assets, and liabilities assumed was determined and
recognized. The difference between the consideration paid and
the acquisition-date value of the identifiable assets acquired
and liabilities assumed was recognized as goodwill, as disclosed
in the table above. The financial condition and results of
operations of Niconovum AB do not meet the materiality criteria
to be reportable and are therefore included in the operating
segment All Other.
|
|
Note 4
|
Restructuring
Charges
|
2009
Restructuring Charge
In December 2009, RJR Tobacco announced the elimination of
approximately 400 full-time production positions. These
positions were selected from employees who volunteered to be
considered for job elimination. The job eliminations are
expected to be substantially completed by December 31, 2010.
Under existing benefit plans, $48 million of
severance-related cash benefits and $8 million of non-cash
pension-related benefits comprised a restructuring charge of
$56 million. None of the cash portion of the charge was
paid during 2009. Accordingly, in the consolidated balance sheet
as of December 31, 2009, $21 million was included in
other current liabilities, and $27 million was included in
other noncurrent liabilities. The cash benefits are expected to
be substantially paid by December 31, 2011.
The component of the restructuring charge accrued and utilized
was as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Employee
|
|
|
|
Severance
|
|
|
|
and Benefits
|
|
|
Original accrual
|
|
$
|
56
|
|
Utilized in 2009
|
|
|
(8
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance as of December 31, 2009
|
|
$
|
48
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2008
Restructuring Charge
In 2008, RAI and RJR Tobacco announced changes in their
organizational structures to streamline non-core business
processes and programs in order to allocate additional resources
to strategic growth initiatives. The reorganizations resulted in
the elimination of approximately 600 full-time jobs,
substantially completed by December 31, 2009.
75
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
Under existing benefit plans, $83 million of
severance-related cash benefits and $7 million of non-cash
pension-related benefits comprised a restructuring charge of
$90 million. Of this charge, $81 million was recorded
in the RJR Tobacco segment. Of the cash portion of the charge,
$43 million was paid as of December 31, 2009.
Accordingly, in the consolidated balance sheet as of
December 31, 2009, $29 million was included in other
current liabilities, and $11 million was included in other
noncurrent liabilities. The cash benefits are expected to be
substantially paid by December 31, 2011.
The component of the restructuring charge accrued and utilized
was as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Employee
|
|
|
|
Severance
|
|
|
|
and Benefits
|
|
|
Original accrual
|
|
$
|
91
|
|
Utilized in 2008
|
|
|
(12
|
)
|
Adjusted in 2008
|
|
|
(1
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance as of December 31, 2008
|
|
|
78
|
|
Utilized in 2009
|
|
|
(38
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance as of December 31, 2009
|
|
$
|
40
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2004
B&W Business Combination Restructuring Costs
In connection with the allocation of the cost of the B&W
business combination to assets acquired and liabilities assumed,
RJR Tobacco accrued restructuring costs of $272 million in
2004, related to severance, and other relocation, contract
terminations and facility closure costs. As of December 31,
2009, $248 million of the accrual had been paid, and a net
cost reduction of $17 million had been recorded for
lower-than-expected
costs. In the consolidated balance sheet as of December 31,
2009, $1 million is included in other current liabilities
and $6 million is included in other noncurrent liabilities.
|
|
Note 5
|
Termination
of Joint Venture
|
In 2002, R.J. Reynolds Tobacco C.V., an indirect wholly owned
subsidiary of RAI and referred to as RJRTCV, and an affiliate of
Gallaher Group Plc, referred to as Gallaher, formed a joint
venture, with each party owning a 50% membership interest. The
joint venture, R. J. Reynolds-Gallaher International Sarl,
marketed American-blend cigarettes primarily in Italy, France
and Spain.
In 2007, an affiliate of Japan Tobacco Inc., referred to as JTI,
acquired Gallaher, and Gallaher subsequently notified RJRTCV
that the acquisition constituted a change of control of Gallaher
within the meaning of the joint venture agreement. Pursuant to
the terms of the joint venture agreement, RJRTCV elected to
terminate the joint venture prior to its expiration date. The
joint venture was terminated on December 31, 2007.
The joint venture agreement provided that upon a termination of
the joint venture, the value of all the trademarks each joint
venture member or its affiliate licensed to the joint venture,
other than NATURAL AMERICAN SPIRIT, would be calculated and that
the party whose licensed trademarks were determined to be of
greater value would be required to pay the other party an
amount, referred to as the Termination Amount, equal to one-half
of the difference between the values of the parties
respective trademarks. In 2008, RJRTCV and Gallaher Limited, an
affiliate of Gallaher, entered into a valuation payment
settlement agreement, pursuant to which Gallaher Limited agreed
to pay RJRTCV a Termination Amount equal to euros
265 million, or approximately $388 million. Of this
amount, euros 132.50 million, or 50%, was paid as of
December 31, 2009, and the remaining 50% is to be paid in
five equal annual installments starting in April 2010. Of this
receivable, $35 million, including imputed interest, was
included in current notes receivable, and $134 million was
included in other assets and deferred charges, in RAIs
consolidated balance sheet as of December 31, 2009. Related
to the gain on termination of the joint venture of
$328 million, approximately $118 million of deferred
tax was recognized and included in deferred income taxes, net in
the noncurrent liability section of the consolidated balance
sheet as of December 31, 2009.
76
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
|
|
Note 6
|
Income
Per Share
|
The components of the calculation of income per share were as
follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For the Years Ended December 31,
|
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
Income from continuing operations before extraordinary item
|
|
$
|
962
|
|
|
$
|
1,338
|
|
|
$
|
1,307
|
|
Extraordinary item gain on acquisition
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income
|
|
$
|
962
|
|
|
$
|
1,338
|
|
|
$
|
1,308
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Basic weighted average shares, in thousands
|
|
|
291,381
|
|
|
|
293,401
|
|
|
|
295,163
|
|
Effect of dilutive potential shares:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Options
|
|
|
135
|
|
|
|
199
|
|
|
|
246
|
|
Stock units
|
|
|
310
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Diluted weighted average shares, in thousands
|
|
|
291,826
|
|
|
|
293,600
|
|
|
|
295,409
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Effective January 1, 2009, RAI adopted revised GAAP that
had the effect of including unvested restricted shares
outstanding in basic and diluted weighted average share
calculations. Retrospective application reduced basic and
diluted income per share by $0.02 and $0.01, respectively, for
2008, and reduced basic income per share by $0.01 for 2007.
Short-term investments classified as
available-for-sale
were as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31, 2009
|
|
|
December 31, 2008
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gross
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Estimated
|
|
|
|
|
|
Realized
|
|
|
|
|
|
Estimated
|
|
|
|
Cost
|
|
|
Redemptions
|
|
|
Fair Value
|
|
|
Cost
|
|
|
Loss
|
|
|
Redemptions
|
|
|
Fair Value
|
|
|
Reserve Fund Primary Fund
|
|
$
|
7
|
|
|
$
|
(5
|
)
|
|
$
|
2
|
|
|
$
|
37
|
|
|
$
|
(1
|
)
|
|
$
|
(29
|
)
|
|
$
|
7
|
|
Reserve Fund International Liquidity Fund
|
|
|
16
|
|
|
|
(14
|
)
|
|
|
2
|
|
|
|
17
|
|
|
|
(1
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
16
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
23
|
|
|
$
|
(19
|
)
|
|
$
|
4
|
|
|
$
|
54
|
|
|
$
|
(2
|
)
|
|
$
|
(29
|
)
|
|
$
|
23
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
RAI has the intent and the ability to hold the investments in
the Reserve Funds until the remaining holdings are distributed.
Long-term investments classified as
available-for-sale
were as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31, 2009
|
|
|
December 31, 2008
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gross
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gross
|
|
|
Gross
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Unrealized
|
|
|
Estimated
|
|
|
|
|
|
Realized
|
|
|
Unrealized
|
|
|
Estimated
|
|
|
|
Cost
|
|
|
Gain/(Loss)
|
|
|
Fair Value
|
|
|
Cost
|
|
|
Loss
|
|
|
Loss
|
|
|
Fair Value
|
|
|
Auction rate securities corporate credit risk
|
|
$
|
95
|
|
|
$
|
(65
|
)
|
|
$
|
30
|
|
|
$
|
95
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
(51
|
)
|
|
$
|
44
|
|
Auction rate securities financial insurance companies
|
|
|
17
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
17
|
|
|
|
50
|
|
|
|
(33
|
)
|
|
|
(2
|
)
|
|
|
15
|
|
Mortgage-backed security
|
|
|
31
|
|
|
|
(15
|
)
|
|
|
16
|
|
|
|
37
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(16
|
)
|
|
|
21
|
|
Marketable equity security
|
|
|
2
|
|
|
|
17
|
|
|
|
19
|
|
|
|
2
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
145
|
|
|
$
|
(63
|
)
|
|
$
|
82
|
|
|
$
|
184
|
|
|
$
|
(33
|
)
|
|
$
|
(69
|
)
|
|
$
|
82
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
77
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
RAI has five investments in auction rate securities linked to
corporate credit risk, four investments in auction rate
securities related to financial insurance companies, one
investment in a mortgage-backed security and one investment in a
marketable equity security. These securities were carried at
fair value and included in other assets and deferred charges,
and unrealized gains and losses, net of tax, were included in
other comprehensive loss in RAIs consolidated balance
sheets as of December 31, 2009 and 2008. The realized
losses were recorded in other expense, net in RAIs
consolidated statement of income for the years ended
December 31, 2009, 2008 and 2007. The funds associated with
the auction rate securities will not be accessible until a
successful auction occurs or a buyer is found. The
mortgage-backed security matures in March 2010. RAI is in the
process of evaluating its alternatives for restructuring the
terms of this investment and will make a determination by the
maturity date.
RAI reviews these investments on a quarterly basis to determine
if it is probable that RAI will realize some portion of the
unrealized loss and to determine the classification of the
impairment as temporary or
other-than-temporary.
Since the adoption of authoritative GAAP in June 2009, RAI
recognizes the credit loss component of an
other-than-temporary
impairment of its debt securities in earnings and the noncredit
component in other comprehensive loss for those securities in
which RAI does not intend to sell and it is more likely than not
that RAI will not be required to sell the securities prior to
recovery.
In determining if the difference between amortized cost and
estimated fair value of the auction rate securities or the
mortgage-backed security was deemed either temporary or
other-than-temporary
impairment, RAI evaluated each type of long-term investment
using a set of criteria, including decline in value, duration of
the decline, period until anticipated recovery, nature of
investment, probability of recovery, financial condition and
near-term prospects of the issuer, RAIs intent and ability
to retain the investment, attributes of the decline in value,
status with rating agencies, status of principal and interest
payments and any other issues related to the underlying
securities. Additionally, RAI evaluated any credit loss within
the fair market valuation by comparing the net amortized cost of
the securities to the discounted present value of anticipated
future cash flows.
RAI determined the change in the fair value of the investments
in the auction rate securities linked to corporate credit risk
was temporary as of December 31, 2009, primarily based on
estimated cash flows of the investments, present and expected
defaults of the underlying collateral and RAIs ability and
intent to hold such investments. RAI also determined the present
value of anticipated future cash flows exceeded the net
amortized cost of the investment and therefore did not have any
credit loss to recognize. RAI believes the decline in the fair
value of the securities is related to present market conditions
and that the investments will continue to be carried at less
than cost until economic conditions improve. RAI believes it is
probable these securities will eventually recover, and RAI has
no intention of, and does not believe there will be a
requirement for, selling these securities in the foreseeable
future.
In 2008, three of the four investments in auction rate
securities related to financial insurance companies were
other-than-temporarily
impaired. As of December 31, 2009, the fair value of those
three investments increased above their amortized cost,
generating unrealized gains. The decline in the fair value of
the remaining investment has been determined by RAI to be
temporary, primarily based on estimated cash flows of the
security, near-term prospects and financial condition of the
issuer and RAIs ability and intent to hold such
investment. RAI also determined the present value of anticipated
future cash flows exceeded the net amortized cost of the
investment and therefore did not have any credit loss to
recognize. RAI believes the decline in the fair value of this
security is related to present market conditions and that this
investment will continue to be carried at less than cost until
economic conditions improve. RAI believes it is probable this
security will eventually recover, and RAI has no intention of,
and does not believe there will be a requirement for, selling
any of these securities in the foreseeable future.
RAI determined the change in the fair value of the investment of
the mortgage-backed security, classified above
sub-prime at
inception, was also temporary as of December 31, 2009,
primarily based on estimated cash flows of the security, as well
as the underlying collateral. RAI also determined the present
value of anticipated future cash flows exceeded the net
amortized cost of the investment and therefore did not have any
credit loss to recognize. RAI believes the decline in the fair
value of the mortgage-backed security is related to present
market conditions and that this investment will continue to be
carried at less than cost until economic conditions surrounding
the housing markets improve. RAI believes it is probable this
security will recover as the lowering
78
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
of interest rates and the assistance of government-related funds
will result in refinancing opportunities. In addition, during
2009, RAI received $6 million in principal payments on the
mortgage-backed security. RAI has no intention of, and does not
believe there will be a requirement for, selling this security
in the foreseeable future and has the ability to allow financial
markets to recover and ultimately realize the value of this
investment.
RAI determined the change in the fair value of the investment in
a marketable equity security using quoted market prices as of
December 31, 2009.
The major components of inventories at December 31 were as
follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
Leaf tobacco
|
|
$
|
1,052
|
|
|
$
|
993
|
|
Other raw materials
|
|
|
65
|
|
|
|
60
|
|
Work in process
|
|
|
80
|
|
|
|
58
|
|
Finished products
|
|
|
180
|
|
|
|
145
|
|
Other
|
|
|
32
|
|
|
|
26
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
1,409
|
|
|
|
1,282
|
|
Less LIFO allowance
|
|
|
190
|
|
|
|
112
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
1,219
|
|
|
$
|
1,170
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Inventories valued under the LIFO method were $743 million
and $765 million at December 31, 2009 and 2008,
respectively, net of the LIFO allowance. The LIFO allowance
reflects the excess of the current cost of LIFO inventories at
December 31, 2009 and 2008, over the amount at which these
inventories were carried on the consolidated balance sheets. RAI
recorded expense of $78 million, $61 million and
income of $12 million from LIFO inventory changes during
2009, 2008 and 2007, respectively.
|
|
Note 9
|
Other
Current Liabilities
|
Other current liabilities at December 31 included the following:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
Payroll and employee benefits
|
|
$
|
228
|
|
|
$
|
222
|
|
Pension and other post-retirement benefits
|
|
|
79
|
|
|
|
85
|
|
Marketing and advertising
|
|
|
142
|
|
|
|
137
|
|
Declared dividends
|
|
|
262
|
|
|
|
248
|
|
Excise, franchise and property tax
|
|
|
166
|
|
|
|
66
|
|
Restructuring
|
|
|
52
|
|
|
|
43
|
|
Other
|
|
|
244
|
|
|
|
342
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
1,173
|
|
|
$
|
1,143
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
79
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
The components of the provision for income taxes from continuing
operations for the years ended December 31 were as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
Current:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Federal
|
|
$
|
592
|
|
|
$
|
632
|
|
|
$
|
588
|
|
State and other
|
|
|
134
|
|
|
|
142
|
|
|
|
109
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
726
|
|
|
|
774
|
|
|
|
697
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Deferred:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Federal
|
|
|
(150
|
)
|
|
|
27
|
|
|
|
42
|
|
State and other
|
|
|
(4
|
)
|
|
|
(11
|
)
|
|
|
27
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(154
|
)
|
|
|
16
|
|
|
|
69
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
572
|
|
|
$
|
790
|
|
|
$
|
766
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The net current deferred income tax asset shown on the
consolidated balance sheets at December 31 included the
following:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
Deferred tax assets (liabilities):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
LIFO inventories
|
|
$
|
(206
|
)
|
|
$
|
(203
|
)
|
Pension and other postretirement liabilities
|
|
|
36
|
|
|
|
48
|
|
Tobacco settlement accruals
|
|
|
1,040
|
|
|
|
925
|
|
Other accrued liabilities
|
|
|
86
|
|
|
|
68
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
956
|
|
|
$
|
838
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The composition of the net current deferred income tax asset by
jurisdiction at December 31 was as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
Federal
|
|
$
|
778
|
|
|
$
|
683
|
|
State and other
|
|
|
178
|
|
|
|
155
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
956
|
|
|
$
|
838
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The net noncurrent deferred income tax liability shown on the
consolidated balance sheets at December 31 included the
following:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
Deferred tax assets:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pension and other postretirement liabilities
|
|
$
|
766
|
|
|
$
|
1,134
|
|
Other noncurrent liabilities
|
|
|
141
|
|
|
|
139
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
907
|
|
|
|
1,273
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Deferred tax liabilities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Property and equipment
|
|
|
(231
|
)
|
|
|
(236
|
)
|
Trademarks and other intangibles
|
|
|
(985
|
)
|
|
|
(1,200
|
)
|
Other
|
|
|
(132
|
)
|
|
|
(119
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1,348
|
)
|
|
|
(1,555
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
(441
|
)
|
|
$
|
(282
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
80
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
The composition of net noncurrent deferred income tax liability
by jurisdiction at December 31 was as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
Federal
|
|
$
|
(414
|
)
|
|
$
|
(319
|
)
|
State and other
|
|
|
(27
|
)
|
|
|
37
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
(441
|
)
|
|
$
|
(282
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
No valuation allowance has been provided on the deferred tax
assets as of December 31, 2009 or 2008, as RAI believes it
is more likely than not that all of the deferred tax assets will
be realized through the expected generation of future taxable
income.
Pre-tax income for domestic and foreign operations for the years
ended December 31 consisted of the following:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
Domestic (includes U.S. exports)
|
|
$
|
1,508
|
|
|
$
|
1,774
|
|
|
$
|
2,043
|
|
Foreign
|
|
|
26
|
|
|
|
354
|
|
|
|
30
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
1,534
|
|
|
$
|
2,128
|
|
|
$
|
2,073
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A gain of $328 million from the termination of the R. J.
Reynolds-Gallaher International Sarl joint venture was included
in foreign income during 2008.
The differences between the provision for income taxes from
continuing operations and income taxes computed at statutory
U.S. federal income tax rates for the years ended
December 31 were as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
Income taxes computed at statutory U.S. federal income tax rates
|
|
$
|
537
|
|
|
$
|
745
|
|
|
$
|
725
|
|
State and local income taxes, net of federal tax benefits
|
|
|
81
|
|
|
|
73
|
|
|
|
86
|
|
Favorable resolution of federal tax matters
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(2
|
)
|
|
|
(1
|
)
|
Other items, net
|
|
|
(46
|
)
|
|
|
(26
|
)
|
|
|
(44
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Provision for income taxes from continuing operations
|
|
$
|
572
|
|
|
$
|
790
|
|
|
$
|
766
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Effective tax rate
|
|
|
37.3
|
%
|
|
|
37.1
|
%
|
|
|
37.0
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As of December 31, 2009, there were $462 million of
accumulated and undistributed foreign earnings. Of this amount,
RAI has invested $88 million and has plans to invest
$27 million overseas. RAI has recorded deferred income
taxes of $120 million on the $347 million of
accumulated earnings in excess of its historical and planned
overseas investments.
The deferred tax benefits included in accumulated other
comprehensive loss were $900 million for retirement
benefits and $26 million for unrealized losses on long-term
investments as of December 31, 2009, and were
$1,076 million for retirement benefits and $28 million
for unrealized losses on long-term investments as of
December 31, 2008.
The gross accruals for unrecognized income tax benefits,
including interest and penalties, reflected in other noncurrent
liabilities were $159 million at December 31, 2009 and
2008. RAI accrues interest and penalties related to accruals for
income taxes and reflects these amounts in income tax expense.
The gross amount of interest accrued at December 31, 2009
and 2008, was $53 million and $50 million,
respectively. The gross amount of penalties accrued was
$12 million at December 31, 2009 and 2008.
81
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
A reconciliation of the unrecognized gross tax benefits is as
follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
Balance at beginning of year
|
|
$
|
97
|
|
|
$
|
111
|
|
|
$
|
115
|
|
Gross increases related to current period tax positions
|
|
|
6
|
|
|
|
10
|
|
|
|
15
|
|
Gross increases related to tax positions in prior periods
|
|
|
3
|
|
|
|
3
|
|
|
|
3
|
|
Gross decreases related to tax positions in prior periods
|
|
|
(4
|
)
|
|
|
(3
|
)
|
|
|
(9
|
)
|
Gross decreases related to audit settlements paid
|
|
|
(3
|
)
|
|
|
(16
|
)
|
|
|
(9
|
)
|
Gross decreases related to lapse of applicable statute of
limitations
|
|
|
(5
|
)
|
|
|
(8
|
)
|
|
|
(4
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance at end of year
|
|
$
|
94
|
|
|
$
|
97
|
|
|
$
|
111
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As of December 31, 2009, $54 million of unrecognized
tax benefits and $45 million of interest and penalties, if
recognized, would decrease RAIs effective tax rate.
RAI and its subsidiaries may be subject to income taxes in the
United States, certain foreign jurisdictions and multiple state
jurisdictions. A number of years may elapse before a particular
matter, for which RAI has established an accrual, is audited and
finally resolved. The number of years with open tax audits
varies depending on the tax jurisdiction. RAIs major
taxing jurisdictions and related open tax audits are discussed
below.
RAI filed a federal consolidated income tax return for the years
through 2008. The statute of limitations remains open for the
years 2006 through 2008. There are no IRS examinations scheduled
at this time for these open years.
In 2007, the State of North Carolina completed its examination
of RJR Tobacco for years 2000 through 2002 and issued a total
assessment of $37 million: $21 million related to tax,
$8 million related to interest and $8 million related
to penalties. RJR Tobacco filed a protest in January 2008. RJR
Tobacco will continue to work with North Carolina to resolve
issues identified and assessed for years 2000 through 2002. A
complete resolution is not anticipated within the next
12 months. However, in the event a complete resolution of
this audit is reached during the next 12 months, RJR
Tobacco could recognize additional expense up to
$13 million, inclusive of tax, interest, net of federal
benefit, and penalties.
It is expected that the amount of unrecognized tax benefits will
change in the next 12 months. Excluding the impact of North
Carolinas assessment for years 2000 through 2002, RAI does
not expect the change to have a significant impact on its
consolidated results of operations, cash flows or financial
position.
|
|
Note 11
|
Borrowing
Arrangements
|
On June 28, 2007, RAI entered into a Fifth Amended and
Restated Credit Agreement, which, as subsequently amended, is
referred to as the Credit Facility and provides for a five-year,
$498 million revolving credit facility, which may be
increased up to $848 million at the discretion of the
lenders upon the request of RAI.
Effective July 3, 2009, RAI entered into a Second Amendment
to Credit Agreement, referred to as the Second Amendment,
amending the Credit Facility by, among other things:
|
|
|
|
|
terminating the revolving loan commitment of Lehman Commercial
Paper Inc., which filed for protection under Chapter 11 of
the federal Bankruptcy Code on October 5, 2008, and thereby
reducing the total revolving loan commitment under the Credit
Facility from $550 million to $498 million;
|
|
|
|
amending the definition of Lender Default and
certain related definitions;
|
|
|
|
granting RAI the right under certain circumstances to terminate
the revolving loan commitment of a Defaulting Lender, as defined
in the Credit Facility, if RAI is unable to replace such
Defaulting Lender; and
|
|
|
|
otherwise clarifying the rights and responsibilities of the
parties to the Credit Facility upon the occurrence of a Lender
Default.
|
82
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
The Credit Facility contains, among others, the following
restrictive covenants that limit, and in some circumstances
prohibit, the ability of RAI and its subsidiaries to:
|
|
|
|
|
incur or guarantee additional debt;
|
|
|
|
pay dividends;
|
|
|
|
make capital expenditures, investments or other restricted
payments;
|
|
|
|
engage in transactions with shareholders and affiliates;
|
|
|
|
create, incur or assume liens;
|
|
|
|
engage in mergers, acquisitions and consolidations; and
|
|
|
|
sell assets.
|
These covenants are subject to a number of qualifications and
exceptions.
RAIs results on certain covenants under the Credit
Facility were as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Actual
|
|
Credit Facility Requirement
|
|
Consolidated total leverage ratio as of December 31, 2009
|
|
1.67
|
|
Less than or equal to 3.25
|
Consolidated interest coverage ratio as of December 31, 2009
|
|
11.12
|
|
Greater than or equal to 3.00
|
Capital expenditures in 2009
|
|
$141 million
|
|
Less than or equal to $450 million
|
The Credit Facility contains customary events of default,
including upon a change in control, that could result in the
acceleration of the repayment of all amounts and cancellation of
all commitments outstanding thereunder.
RAI is able to use the Credit Facility for borrowings and
issuances of letters of credit at its option. Issuances of
letters of credit reduce availability under the facility. As of
December 31, 2009, there were no borrowings, and
$15 million of letters of credit outstanding, under the
Credit Facility.
Under the terms of the Credit Facility, RAI is not required to
maintain compensating balances; however, RAI is required to pay
a commitment fee of between 0.25% and 1.0% per annum on the
unused portion of the Credit Facility. During 2009, RAI incurred
$3 million in commitment fees.
Borrowings under the Credit Facility bear interest, at the
option of RAI, at a rate equal to an applicable margin plus:
|
|
|
|
|
the reference rate, which is the higher of (1) the federal
funds effective rate from time to time plus 0.5% and
(2) the prime rate; or
|
|
|
|
the eurodollar rate, which is the rate at which eurodollar
deposits for one, two, three or six months are offered in the
interbank eurodollar market.
|
Certain of RAIs subsidiaries, including its material
domestic subsidiaries, referred to as the Guarantors, have
guaranteed RAIs obligations under the Credit Facility and
under RAIs outstanding senior notes, referred to as the
Notes.
83
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
Long-term debt, net of discount and including fair value
adjustments associated with interest rate swaps, as of December
31 consisted of the following:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
RJR debt:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
9.25%, notes due 2013
|
|
$
|
60
|
|
|
$
|
60
|
|
7.25% guaranteed, notes due 2012
|
|
|
61
|
|
|
|
64
|
|
7.3% guaranteed, notes due 2015
|
|
|
1
|
|
|
|
1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total RJR debt
|
|
|
122
|
|
|
|
125
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
RAI debt:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6.5% guaranteed, notes due 2010
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
299
|
|
6.75% guaranteed, notes due 2017
|
|
|
824
|
|
|
|
846
|
|
7.25% guaranteed, notes due 2012
|
|
|
424
|
|
|
|
439
|
|
7.25% guaranteed, notes due 2013
|
|
|
623
|
|
|
|
622
|
|
7.25% guaranteed, notes due 2037
|
|
|
448
|
|
|
|
447
|
|
7.3% guaranteed, notes due 2015
|
|
|
199
|
|
|
|
199
|
|
7.625% guaranteed, notes due 2016
|
|
|
847
|
|
|
|
860
|
|
7.75% guaranteed, notes due 2018
|
|
|
249
|
|
|
|
249
|
|
Floating rate, guaranteed, notes due 2011
|
|
|
400
|
|
|
|
400
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total RAI debt
|
|
|
4,014
|
|
|
|
4,361
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total long-term debt (less current maturities)
|
|
|
4,136
|
|
|
|
4,486
|
|
Current maturities of long-term debt
|
|
|
300
|
|
|
|
200
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
4,436
|
|
|
$
|
4,686
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As of December 31, 2009, the maturities of RAIs and
RJRs notes, net of discount and excluding fair value
adjustments associated with interest rate swaps, were as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year
|
|
RAI
|
|
|
RJR
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
2010
|
|
$
|
300
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
300
|
|
2011
|
|
|
400
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
400
|
|
2012
|
|
|
392
|
|
|
|
57
|
|
|
|
449
|
|
2013
|
|
|
623
|
|
|
|
60
|
|
|
|
683
|
|
2015 and thereafter
|
|
|
2,368
|
|
|
|
1
|
|
|
|
2,369
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
4,083
|
|
|
$
|
118
|
|
|
$
|
4,201
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In conjunction with their obligations under the Credit Facility,
RAIs material domestic subsidiaries, including RJR, RJR
Tobacco, Santa Fe, Lane, GPI and the Conwood companies
guarantee the Notes.
The estimated fair value of RAIs and RJRs
outstanding long-term notes was $4.4 billion and
$3.5 billion with an effective average annual interest rate
of 5.46% and 5.67%, as of December 31, 2009 and 2008,
respectively. The fair values were based on available market
quotes, credit spreads and discounted cash flows, as appropriate.
At its option, RAI and RJR, as applicable, may redeem any or all
of their outstanding fixed-rate notes, in whole or in part, at
any time, subject to the payment of a make-whole premium. The
floating rate notes, with the variable component of interest
based on three-month LIBOR, are redeemable at par on any
interest payment date after December 15, 2008.
84
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
|
|
Note 13
|
Financial
Instruments
|
Interest
Rate Management
RAI and RJR use interest rate swaps to manage interest rate risk
on a portion of their respective debt obligations.
Swaps existed on the following principal amount of debt:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fixed to Floating Rate
|
|
|
Floating to Fixed Rate
|
|
|
Fixed to Floating Rate
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
December 31, 2008
|
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
and 2007
|
|
|
RJR 7.25% notes, due 2012
|
|
$
|
44
|
|
|
$
|
44
|
|
|
$
|
57
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total swapped RJR debt
|
|
|
44
|
|
|
|
44
|
|
|
|
57
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
RAI 7.25% notes, due 2012
|
|
|
306
|
|
|
|
306
|
|
|
|
393
|
|
RAI 7.625% notes, due 2016
|
|
|
450
|
|
|
|
450
|
|
|
|
450
|
|
RAI 6.75% notes, due 2017
|
|
|
700
|
|
|
|
700
|
|
|
|
700
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total swapped RAI debt
|
|
|
1,456
|
|
|
|
1,456
|
|
|
|
1,543
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total swapped debt
|
|
$
|
1,500
|
|
|
$
|
1,500
|
|
|
$
|
1,600
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Historically, the interest rate swap agreements were derivative
instruments that qualified for hedge accounting. RAI and RJR
assess at the inception of the hedge whether the hedging
derivatives are highly effective in offsetting changes in fair
value of the hedged item. Ineffectiveness results when changes
in the market value of the hedged debt are not completely offset
by changes in the market value of the interest rate swap. There
was no ineffectiveness recognized related to derivative
instruments during 2009, 2008 or 2007. As detailed below, at
December 31, 2009, RAI and RJR had no derivative
instruments designated as hedges.
On January 6, 2009, the fair value of RAIs and
RJRs fixed to floating interest rate swaps, designated as
hedges, was $258 million. RAI and RJR locked in the value
of these swaps by entering into offsetting floating to fixed
interest rate swap agreements in the notional amount of
$1.5 billion with maturity dates ranging from June 1,
2012 to June 15, 2017. The floating to fixed interest rate
swaps were entered into with the same financial institution that
holds a notional amount of $1.5 billion of fixed to
floating interest rate swaps and have a legal right of offset.
The future cash flows, established as a result of entering into
the January 6, 2009, floating to fixed interest rate swaps,
total $321 million, and will be amortized and effectively
reduce net interest costs over the remaining life of the notes.
Concurrent with entering the floating to fixed interest rate
swap agreements on January 6, 2009, which were not
designated as hedging instruments, RAI and RJR removed the
designation of fair value hedge from the fixed to floating
interest rate swaps.
On January 7, 2009, RAI and RJR terminated an interest rate
swap agreement in the notional amount of $100 million with
a maturity date of June 1, 2012. The resulting gain of
approximately $12 million will be amortized to effectively
reduce interest expense over the remaining life of the notes.
As a result of these actions, RAI and RJR have economically
decreased the fixed rate on $1.6 billion of debt to a fixed
rate of interest of approximately 4.0%.
As of December 31, 2009, a summary of interest rate swaps
outstanding was as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fixed to Floating
|
|
Floating to Fixed
|
|
Pay
|
|
Floating based on one and six month LIBOR
|
|
4.0% fixed
|
Receive
|
|
7.1% fixed
|
|
Floating based on one and six month LIBOR
|
Weighted average maturity
|
|
5.97 years
|
|
5.97 years
|
85
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
Interest rate swaps are presented in the consolidated balance
sheets at December 31 at fair value as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2009
|
|
2008
|
|
Designated as hedging instrument:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other assets and deferred charges
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
287
|
|
Long-term debt (less current maturities)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(287
|
)
|
Not designated as hedging instrument:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other assets and deferred charges
|
|
|
239
|
|
|
|
|
|
Long-term debt (less current maturities)
|
|
|
(235
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
Other noncurrent liabilities
|
|
|
(2
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
Interest rate swaps impacted the consolidated statements of
income as of December 31 as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2009
|
|
2008
|
|
2007
|
|
Interest and debt expense
|
|
$
|
(47
|
)
|
|
$
|
(43
|
)
|
|
$
|
(4
|
)
|
Other (income) expense, net
|
|
|
(9
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Credit
Risk
RAI and its subsidiaries minimize counterparty credit risk
related to their financial instruments by using major
institutions.
See note 12 for additional disclosures regarding long-term
debt.
|
|
Note 14
|
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, RAIs
operating subsidiaries products, are pending or may be
instituted against RJR Tobacco, the Conwood companies 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 the
Conwood companies. 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 the Conwood companies
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, British American Tobacco p.l.c.,
referred to as 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. In addition, pursuant to this indemnity, RJR
Tobacco expensed less than $1 million during each of 2009
and 2008 and $1 million in 2007 for funds to be reimbursed
to BAT for costs and expenses incurred arising out of certain
tobacco-related litigation.
86
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
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 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,
special duty, voluntary undertaking, breach of warranty, failure
to warn, fraud, misrepresentation, unfair trade practices,
conspiracy, unjust enrichment, medical monitoring, public
nuisance 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 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
state to state and jurisdiction to jurisdiction, compensatory
and punitive damages have been specifically pleaded in a number
of cases, sometimes in amounts ranging into the hundreds of
millions and even billions of dollars.
Defenses
The defenses raised by RJR Tobacco, the Conwood companies 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 and the Conwood companies, as applicable, record any
loss concerning litigation at such time as an unfavorable
outcome becomes probable and the amount can be reasonably
estimated. For the reasons set forth below, RAIs
management continues to conclude that the loss of any particular
pending smoking and health tobacco litigation claim against RJR
Tobacco or its affiliates
87
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
or indemnitees, or the loss of any particular claim concerning
the use of smokeless tobacco against the Conwood companies, when
viewed on an individual basis, is not probable.
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.
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.
Except for a $2 million accrual related to an unfavorable
judgment in the Whiteley v R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.
case, no other liability for pending smoking and health tobacco
litigation was recorded in RAIs consolidated balance sheet
as of December 31, 2009. However, as of December 31,
2009, RJR Tobacco had $2 million related to non-smoking and
health litigation, and RJR, and its subsidiary RJR Tobacco, had
liabilities totaling $94 million that were recorded in 1999
in connection with certain non-smoking and health
indemnification claims asserted by JTI relating to certain
activities of Northern Brands International, Inc., a now
inactive, indirect subsidiary of RAI formerly involved in the
international tobacco business, referred to as Northern Brands.
For further information on Northern Brands and related
litigation and the indemnification claims of JTI, see
Litigation Affecting the Cigarette
Industry Other Litigation and Developments and
Other Contingencies below.
Generally, RJR Tobacco and its affiliates and indemnitees have
not settled, and currently RJR Tobacco and its affiliates do not
intend to settle, any smoking and health tobacco litigation
claims. It is the policy of RJR Tobacco and its affiliates to
vigorously defend all tobacco-related litigation claims.
The only smoking and health tobacco litigation claims settled 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
Class-Action
Suits.
|
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
State Settlement Agreements.
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
hospitals, 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.
88
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
The pending U.S. Department of Justice case brought against
various industry members, including RJR Tobacco and B&W,
discussed below under Litigation Affecting the
Cigarette Industry Health-Care Cost Recovery
Cases, also can be distinguished from the circumstances
surrounding the State Settlement Agreements. Under its Medical
Care Recovery Act and Medicare Secondary Payer Act claims, the
federal government made arguments similar to the states and
sought to recover federal funds expended in providing health
care to smokers who have developed diseases and injuries alleged
to be smoking-related. These claims were dismissed, and the only
claim remaining in the case involves alleged violations of civil
provisions of the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act, referred to as RICO. A comprehensive
discussion of this case is set forth below under
Litigation Affecting the Cigarette
Industry Health-Care Cost Recovery 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
Class-Action
Suits, 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.
Likewise, 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. Despite
valid legal defenses, 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 cases
currently pending against RJR Tobacco and B&W involve
different types of plaintiffs and different theories of recovery
under the antitrust laws than other 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, RJR
Tobacco and B&W each has settled certain cases brought by
states concerning the enforcement of State Settlement
Agreements. Despite valid legal defenses, 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.
The Conwood companies also believe that they have valid defenses
to the smokeless tobacco litigation against them. The Conwood
companies have 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 the Conwood companies and their counsel.
No verdict or judgment has been returned or entered against the
Conwood companies on any claim for personal injuries allegedly
resulting from the use of smokeless tobacco. The Conwood
companies intend to defend vigorously all smokeless tobacco
litigation claims asserted against them. No liability for
pending smokeless tobacco litigation was recorded in RAIs
consolidated balance sheet as of December 31, 2009.
Cautionary
Statement
Even though RAIs 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 case concerning the
use of smokeless tobacco against the Conwood companies, when
viewed on an individual 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, the Conwood
companies 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
89
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
judgments are not final, could materially adversely affect 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
it and its affiliates and indemnitees in litigation matters, it
is possible that RAIs 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 the Conwood companies, it is possible that RAIs results
of operations, cash flows or financial position could be
materially adversely affected by the ultimate outcome of certain
pending litigation matters against the Conwood companies.
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 2009, 10 tobacco-related cases were
served against RJR Tobacco or its affiliates or indemnitees. On
December 31, 2009, there were 11,165 cases, including 671
individual smoker cases pending in West Virginia state court as
a consolidated action and 7,709 Engle Progeny Cases,
involving approximately 9,243 individual plaintiffs, pending in
the United States against RJR Tobacco or its affiliates or
indemnitees, as compared with 3,953 total cases on
December 31, 2008, and 1,399 total cases on
December 31, 2007, pending in the United States against RJR
Tobacco or its affiliates or indemnitees.
As of January 29, 2010, 215 tobacco-related cases were
pending against RJR Tobacco or its affiliates or indemnitees:
205 in the United States; one in Puerto Rico; eight in Canada;
and one in Israel. Of the 205 total U.S. cases, 24 cases
are pending against B&W that are not also pending against
RJR Tobacco. The U.S. case number does not include the
2,595 Broin II or the 7,711 Engle Progeny
Cases, as discussed below, pending as of January 29, 2010.
The following table lists the number of
U.S. tobacco-related cases by state that were pending
against RJR Tobacco or its affiliates or indemnitees as of
January 29, 2010, exclusive of the Broin II and
Engle Progeny Cases:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Number of
|
|
State
|
|
U.S. Cases
|
|
|
Florida
|
|
|
24
|
|
New York
|
|
|
21
|
|
Missouri
|
|
|
21
|
|
Maryland
|
|
|
18
|
|
Louisiana
|
|
|
16
|
|
California
|
|
|
13
|
|
Illinois
|
|
|
7
|
|
West Virginia
|
|
|
6
|
*
|
Pennsylvania
|
|
|
5
|
|
Mississippi
|
|
|
4
|
|
Georgia
|
|
|
4
|
|
Connecticut
|
|
|
4
|
|
Alabama
|
|
|
4
|
|
Kentucky
|
|
|
4
|
|
90
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Number of
|
|
State
|
|
U.S. Cases
|
|
|
Ohio
|
|
|
3
|
|
District of Columbia
|
|
|
3
|
|
New Mexico
|
|
|
3
|
|
North Carolina
|
|
|
3
|
|
Washington
|
|
|
2
|
|
Kansas
|
|
|
2
|
|
Minnesota
|
|
|
2
|
|
South Dakota
|
|
|
2
|
|
Tennessee
|
|
|
2
|
|
Vermont
|
|
|
2
|
|
Wisconsin
|
|
|
2
|
|
New Jersey
|
|
|
2
|
|
Arizona
|
|
|
2
|
|
Delaware
|
|
|
1
|
|
Arkansas
|
|
|
1
|
|
Maine
|
|
|
1
|
|
Michigan
|
|
|
1
|
|
Oregon
|
|
|
1
|
|
South Carolina
|
|
|
1
|
|
Alaska
|
|
|
1
|
|
Colorado
|
|
|
1
|
|
Hawaii
|
|
|
1
|
|
Idaho
|
|
|
1
|
|
Indiana
|
|
|
1
|
|
Iowa
|
|
|
1
|
|
Mariana Islands
|
|
|
1
|
|
Massachusetts
|
|
|
1
|
|
Montana
|
|
|
1
|
|
Nebraska
|
|
|
1
|
|
Nevada
|
|
|
1
|
|
New Hampshire
|
|
|
1
|
|
North Dakota
|
|
|
1
|
|
Oklahoma
|
|
|
1
|
|
Rhode Island
|
|
|
1
|
|
Utah
|
|
|
1
|
|
Virginia
|
|
|
1
|
|
Wyoming
|
|
|
1
|
|
Total
|
|
|
205
|
**
|
|
|
|
* |
|
Includes as one case the 672 cases pending as a consolidated
action In Re: Tobacco Litigation Individual Personal Injury
Cases, sometimes referred to as West Virginia IPIC
cases, described below. |
|
** |
|
Of the pending U.S. cases, 31 are pending in federal court, 173
in state court and 1 in tribal court. |
The following table lists the categories of the
U.S. tobacco-related cases pending against RJR Tobacco or
its affiliates or indemnitees as of January 29, 2010,
compared with the number of cases pending against RJR Tobacco,
its affiliates or indemnitees as of October 9, 2009, as
reported in RAIs Quarterly Report on
Form 10-Q
for the fiscal quarter ended September 30, 2009, filed with
the SEC on October 27, 2009, and a cross-reference to the
discussion of each case type.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Change in
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Number of
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
RJR Tobaccos
|
|
|
Cases Since
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Case Numbers as
|
|
|
October 9, 2009
|
|
|
Page
|
|
Case Type
|
|
of January 29, 2010
|
|
|
Increase/(Decrease)
|
|
|
Reference
|
|
|
Individual Smoking and Health
|
|
|
106
|
|
|
|
No Change
|
|
|
|
96
|
|
West Virginia IPIC (Number of Plaintiffs)*
|
|
|
1(672
|
)
|
|
|
18
|
|
|
|
97
|
|
Engle Progeny (Number of Plaintiffs)**
|
|
|
7,711 (9,246
|
)
|
|
|
4,385 (+505
|
)
|
|
|
97
|
|
Broin II
|
|
|
2,595
|
|
|
|
(1
|
)
|
|
|
99
|
|
Class-Action
|
|
|
17
|
|
|
|
2
|
|
|
|
99
|
|
Health-Care Cost Recovery
|
|
|
4
|
|
|
|
No Change
|
|
|
|
106
|
|
State Settlement Agreements-Enforcement and Validity
|
|
|
58
|
|
|
|
(1
|
)
|
|
|
112
|
|
Antitrust
|
|
|
2
|
|
|
|
No Change
|
|
|
|
115
|
|
Other Litigation and Developments
|
|
|
17
|
|
|
|
3
|
|
|
|
116
|
|
|
|
|
* |
|
The West Virginia Individual Personal Injury Cases have been
separated from the Individual Smoking and Health cases for
reporting purposes. |
91
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
|
|
|
** |
|
The Engle Progeny Cases have been separated from the
Individual Smoking and Health cases for reporting purposes.
Plaintiffs counsel are attempting to include multiple
plaintiffs in most of the cases filed. The increase in the
number of cases includes new cases served and new cases filed by
severed plaintiffs. |
Three 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., the
Louisiana state court
class-action
case, Scott v. American Tobacco Co., and the federal
RICO case brought by the U.S. Department of Justice.
In 2000, a jury in Engle rendered a punitive damages
verdict in favor of the Florida class of
approximately $145 billion against all defendants. On
July 6, 2006, the Florida Supreme Court, among other
things, affirmed an appellate courts reversal of the
punitive damages award, decertified the class going forward,
preserved several
class-wide
findings from the trial, including that nicotine is addictive
and cigarettes are defectively designed, and authorized class
members to avail themselves of these findings in individual
lawsuits under certain conditions. After subsequent motions were
resolved, the Florida Supreme Court issued its mandate on
January 11, 2007, thus beginning a one-year period in which
former class members were permitted to file individual lawsuits.
On October 1, 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court denied the
defendants petition for writ of certiorari. As of
January 29, 2010, RJR Tobacco had been served in 7,711
Engle Progeny Cases in both state and federal courts in
Florida. These cases include approximately 9,246 plaintiffs. The
number of cases will likely change due to individual plaintiffs
being severed from multi-plaintiff cases. In addition, as of
January 29, 2010, RJR Tobacco was aware of 28 additional
cases that had been filed but not served (with 302 plaintiffs).
In 2004, a jury in Scott returned a verdict in favor of
the Louisiana class for $591 million to
establish a state-wide smoking cessation program. In 2007, the
Louisiana Court of Appeals upheld class certification,
significantly reduced the scope of recovery, and remanded the
case for further proceedings. The Louisiana and
U.S. Supreme Courts denied the defendants
applications for writ of certiorari. In July 2008, the trial
court entered an amended judgment in favor of the class for
approximately $263 million plus interest from June 30,
2004. On December 15, 2008, the trial court signed the
order for appeal of the amended judgment. Oral argument on the
defendants appeal occurred on September 1, 2009. A
decision is pending.
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. On May 22, 2009, the
U.S. Court of Appeals largely affirmed the finding of
liability against the tobacco company defendants and remanded to
the trial court for further proceedings. The defendants sought
rehearing
and/or
rehearing en banc, but that motion was denied by the
appellate court on September 22, 2009. On October 21,
2009, the defendants motion to stay issuance of the
mandate pending the filing and disposition of petitions for writ
of certiorari to the U.S Supreme Court was granted. Petitions
for writ of certiorari from the U.S. Supreme Court are due
on February 19, 2010. In addition, the Department of
Justice may include in its writ petition a request for
reinstatement of its claims for remedies, including disgorgement
of profits.
For a detailed description of these cases, see
Class-Action
Suits Engle Case,
Class-Action
Suits Medical Monitoring and Smoking Cessation
Cases and Health-Care Cost Recovery
Cases 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
92
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
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
RAIs 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, however, that RJR Tobacco and other cigarette
manufacturers will face an increased number of tobacco-related
trials in 2010 compared to recent years. The following table
lists the non-Engle Progeny tobacco-related trials
scheduled, as of January 29, 2010, for RJR Tobacco or its
affiliates and indemnitees through December 31, 2010. There
are 68 Engle Progeny cases against RJR Tobacco
and/or
B&W set for trial through December 31, 2010, but it is
not known how many of these cases will actually be tried.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Trial Date
|
|
Case Name/Type
|
|
Defendant(s)
|
|
Jurisdiction
|
|
April 27, 2010
|
|
Izzarelli v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. [Individual]
|
|
RJR Tobacco
|
|
U.S. District Court District of Connecticut (Bridgeport, CT)
|
May 18, 2010
|
|
Power v. John Crane-Houdaille, Inc. [Individual]
|
|
RJR Tobacco, B&W
|
|
Circuit Court Baltimore City (Baltimore, MD)
|
May 25, 2010
|
|
Grisham v. Philip Morris, Inc. [Individual]
|
|
B&W
|
|
U.S. District Court Central District (Los Angeles, CA)
|
July 19, 2010
|
|
Bell v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp.
[Individual]
|
|
RJR Tobacco, B&W
|
|
Circuit Court Jackson County (Kansas City, MO)
|
Trial Results. From January 1, 1999
through January 29, 2010, 61 smoking and health and
health-care cost recovery cases in which RJR Tobacco or B&W
were defendants were tried. Verdicts in favor of RJR Tobacco,
B&W and, in some cases, RJR Tobacco, B&W and other
defendants, were returned in 40 cases, including six mistrials,
tried in Florida (13), New York (4), Missouri (5), Tennessee
(3), Mississippi (2), California (2), West Virginia (2), Ohio
(2), Connecticut (1), Louisiana (1), New Jersey (1),
Pennsylvania (1), South Carolina (1), Texas (1) and
Washington (1).
Additionally, from January 1, 1999 through January 29,
2010, 27 smoking and health cases in which RJR Tobacco,
B&W, or their respective affiliates were not defendants
were tried. Verdicts were returned in favor of the defendants in
15 cases, including two mistrials, tried in Florida (7),
California (3), New Hampshire (1), New York (1), Pennsylvania
(1), Rhode Island (1) and Tennessee (1). Verdicts in favor
of the plaintiffs were returned in 13 cases tried in Florida
(6), California (4), Oregon (2) and Illinois (1).
One smoking and health case (and no health-care cost recovery
case) in which RJR Tobacco was a defendant was tried in the
fourth quarter of 2009. In Williams v. Brown &
Williamson Tobacco Corp., on December 2, 2009, the
court declared a mistrial due to an insufficiency in the
remaining number of jury panelists. The court further
93
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
ordered the parties to notify the court by February 26,
2010, of an agreed upon trial date. For a detailed description
of the case, see Individual Smoking and Health
Cases below.
In addition, in West Virginia IPIC, trial began on
February 1, 2010. However, on February 3, 2010, a
mistrial was granted due to the inability to seat a jury. Trial
has been continued until June 1, 2010. For a detailed
description of the case, see West Virginia
IPIC below.
In Gray v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., on
February 5, 2010 a jury returned a verdict in favor of the
plaintiff, Carolyn Gray. The jury found the decedent, Charles
Gray, to be 40% at fault, RJR Tobacco to be 60% at fault and
awarded $7 million in compensatory damages and
$2 million in punitive damages. For a detailed description
of the case, see Engle Progeny
Cases below.
The following chart reflects the verdicts in the smoking and
health cases that have been tried and remain pending as of
January 29, 2010, in which verdicts have been returned in
favor of the plaintiffs and against RJR Tobacco or B&W, or
both.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cross-Reference to
|
Date of Verdict
|
|
Case Name/Type
|
|
Jurisdiction
|
|
Verdict
|
|
Post-Trial Status
|
|
June 11, 2002
|
|
Lukacs v. R. J. Reynolds
Tobacco Co.
[Engle Progeny]
|
|
Circuit Court, Miami-Dade County
(Miami, FL)
|
|
$500,000 economic damages, $24.5 million non-economic damages
and $12.5 million loss of consortium damages against Philip
Morris, B&W and Liggett, of which B&W was assigned
22.5% of liability. Final judgment was entered in the amount of
$24.8 million plus interest applicable at the yearly statutory
rates from July 11, 2002. RJR Tobacco was dismissed from the
case in May 2002, prior to trial.
|
|
See Engle
Progeny Cases
below.
|
December 18, 2003
|
|
Frankson v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp.
[Individual]
|
|
Supreme Court,
Kings County (Brooklyn, NY)
|
|
$350,000 compensatory damages; 50% fault assigned to B&W
and two industry organizations; $20 million in punitive damages,
of which $6 million was assigned to B&W, $2 million to a
predecessor company and $12 million to two industry
organizations.
|
|
See Individual Smoking and Health Cases
below.
|
May 21, 2004
|
|
Scott v. American Tobacco Co. [Class Action]
|
|
District Court, Orleans Parish (New
Orleans, LA)
|
|
$591 million against RJR Tobacco, B&W, Philip Morris,
Lorillard, and the Tobacco Institute, jointly and severally, for
a smoking cessation program.
|
|
See Class-Action Suits
- Medical
Monitoring and Smoking Cessation Case below.
|
February 2, 2005
|
|
Smith v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp.
[Individual]
|
|
Circuit Court,
Jackson County
(Independence, MO)
|
|
$2 million in compensatory damages, which was reduced to
$500,000 because of jurys findings that the plaintiff was
75% at fault; $20 million in punitive damages.
|
|
See Individual Smoking and Health Cases
below.
|
94
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cross-Reference to
|
Date of Verdict
|
|
Case Name/Type
|
|
Jurisdiction
|
|
Verdict
|
|
Post-Trial Status
|
|
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.
|
|
See Health-Care Cost Recovery Cases
- Department
of Justice Case below.
|
May 2, 2007
|
|
Whiteley v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. [Individual]
|
|
Superior Court, San Francisco County, (San Francisco,
CA)
|
|
$2.46 million in compensatory damages jointly against RJR
Tobacco and Philip Morris; $250,000 punitive damages against RJR
Tobacco only.
|
|
See Individual Smoking and Health Cases
below.
|
May 5, 2009
|
|
Sherman v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. [Engle
Progeny]
|
|
Circuit Court, Broward County, (Ft. Lauderdale, FL)
|
|
$1.5 million in actual damages; 50% of fault assigned to RJR
Tobacco, which reduced the award to $775,000. No punitive
damages awarded.
|
|
See Engle
Progeny Cases
below.
|
May 20, 2009
|
|
Brown v. R. J.
Reynolds Tobacco Co.
[Engle Progeny]
|
|
Circuit Court,
Broward County,
(Ft. Lauderdale, FL)
|
|
$1.2 million in actual damages; 50% of fault assigned to RJR
Tobacco, which reduced the award to $600,000. No punitive
damages awarded.
|
|
See Engle
Progeny Cases
below.
|
May 29, 2009
|
|
Martin v. R. J.
Reynolds Tobacco Co. [Engle Progeny]
|
|
Circuit Court, Escambia County, (Pensacola, FL)
|
|
$5 million in actual damages; 66% of fault assigned to RJR
Tobacco, which reduced the award to $3.3 million; $25 million in
punitive damages.
|
|
See Engle
Progeny Cases
below.
|
August 19, 2009
|
|
Campbell v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. [Engle
Progeny]
|
|
Circuit Court, Escambia County, (Pensacola, FL)
|
|
$7.8 million in compensatory damages; 39% of fault assigned to
RJR Tobacco, which reduced the award to $3.04 million.
|
|
See Engle
Progeny Cases
below.
|
February 8, 2010
|
|
Gray v. R. J.
Reynolds Tobacco Co. [Engle Progeny]
|
|
Circuit Court, Escambia County, (Pensacola, FL)
|
|
$7 million in compensatory damages; 60% of fault assigned to RJR
Tobacco which reduced the award to $4.2 million; $2 million
in punitive damages.
|
|
See Engle
Progeny cases
below.
|
95
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
Individual
Smoking and Health Cases
As of January 29, 2010, 106 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 IPIC cases discussed
below. A total of 103 of the individual cases are brought by or
on behalf of individual smokers or their survivors, while the
remaining three cases are brought by or on behalf of individuals
or their survivors alleging personal injury as a result of
exposure to 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 January 1,
2009 to December 31, 2009, or remained on appeal as of
December 31, 2009.
In Williams v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco
Corp., jury selection began on November 30, 2009. The
plaintiff alleges that his use of the defendants tobacco
products caused him to develop peripheral vascular disease. The
plaintiff seeks in excess of $25,000 in actual damages and an
unspecified amount of punitive damages. On December 2,
2009, the court declared a mistrial due to an insufficiency in
the remaining number of jury panelists. The court further
ordered the parties to notify the court by February 26,
2010, of an agreed upon trial date.
In Whiteley v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., the
retrial of Whiteley v. Raybestos-Manhattan, a case
filed in April 1999 in Superior Court, San Francisco
County, California and originally tried in 2000, the jury
awarded the plaintiff $2.46 million in compensatory damages
jointly against RJR Tobacco and Philip Morris, in May 2007, and
returned a punitive damages verdict award of $250,000 against
RJR Tobacco. RJR Tobaccos motion for judgment
notwithstanding the verdict or, in the alternative, for a new
trial was denied on September 5, 2007. RJR Tobacco
appealed. RJR Tobacco deposited with the court approximately
$2.6 million in U.S. Treasury bills in lieu of a
supersedeas bond to stay enforcement of the judgment pending
appeal. On October 14, 2009, the California Court of Appeal
affirmed the final judgment against RJR Tobacco. The
defendants petition for rehearing was denied on
November 4, 2009. On January 13, 2010, the California
Supreme Court denied the defendants petition for review.
RJR Tobacco paid approximately $2.2 million on
February 5, 2010.
On August 15, 2003, a jury returned a verdict in favor of
B&W in Eiser v. Brown & Williamson
Tobacco Corp., a case filed in March 1999 in the Court of
Common Pleas, Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania. The plaintiff,
Lois Eiser, sought compensatory and punitive damages in an
amount in excess of $50,000, together with interest, costs and
attorneys fees in this wrongful death action against
B&W. On January 19, 2006, the Superior Court of
Pennsylvania affirmed the verdict. On September 22, 2006,
the Pennsylvania Supreme Court granted the plaintiffs
petition to appeal, and on December 28, 2007, remanded the
case to the Superior Court for further review of certain issues.
Briefing to the Superior Court is complete. A decision is
pending.
On December 18, 2003, in Frankson
v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., a case
filed in August 2000 in Supreme Court, Kings County, New York, a
jury awarded $350,000 in compensatory damages against B&W
and two former tobacco industry organizations, the Tobacco
Institute and the Council for Tobacco Research, in an action
brought against the major U.S. cigarette manufacturers,
including RJR Tobacco, who was dismissed prior to trial, and
B&W, seeking $270 million in compensatory damages,
unspecified punitive damages, attorneys fees, costs and
disbursements. Other manufacturers were dismissed before trial.
The plaintiff, Gladys Frankson, alleged that Mr. Frankson
became addicted to nicotine, was unable to cease smoking,
developed lung cancer and died as a result. The defendants as a
group and the deceased smoker were each found to be 50% at
fault. On January 8, 2004, the jury awarded
$20 million in punitive damages, assigning $6 million
to B&W, $2 million to American Tobacco, a predecessor
company to B&W, and $6 million to each of the Council
for Tobacco Research and the Tobacco Institute. On June 22,
2004, the trial judge granted a new trial unless the parties
consented to an increase in compensatory damages to $500,000 and
a decrease in punitive damages to $5 million, of which
$4 million would be assigned to B&W. On
January 21, 2005, the plaintiff stipulated to the reduction
in punitive damages.
Judgment was entered in favor of the plaintiffs for $175,000 in
compensatory damages, the original jury award reduced by 50%,
and $5 million in punitive damages, the amount to which the
plaintiff stipulated. On June 26, 2007,
96
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
final judgment was entered against the defendants in the amount
of approximately $6.8 million, including interest and
costs. The defendants filed a notice of appeal to the Appellate
Division, New York Supreme Court, Second Department on
July 3, 2007. Pursuant to its agreement to indemnify
B&W, RJR Tobacco posted a supersedeas bond in the amount of
$8.018 million on July 5, 2007. On September 29,
2009, the New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, affirmed
the compensatory damages award, set aside the punitive damages
verdict and remanded the case to the Kings County Supreme Court
for a new trial on punitive damages. No trial date has yet been
set.
On February 1, 2005, a 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 plaintiff, Lincoln Smith, claimed
that the defendants tobacco products caused
Mrs. Smiths death from lung cancer and sought an
unspecified amount of compensatory and punitive damages. 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.
B&W appealed to the Missouri Court of Appeals and on
July 31, 2007, the court affirmed the compensatory damages
and ordered a new trial on punitive damages. On
December 16, 2008, the Missouri Court of Appeals issued an
opinion that affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded
the case for further proceedings on the issue of punitive
damages. Trial on the issue of punitive damages began
July 27, 2009. 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. On
August 11, 2009, the jury returned a verdict for the
plaintiffs finding B&W liable for damages for aggravating
circumstances, and on August 20, 2009, returned a verdict
for the plaintiffs and awarded the plaintiffs $1.5 million
in punitive damages. On December 21, 2009, the court denied
the plaintiffs and the defendants post-trial
motions. B&W filed a notice of appeal on December 30,
2009. The plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal on
December 31, 2009.
West
Virginia IPIC
In West Virginia, as of January 29, 2010, there were 712
cases (of which 672 are actions against RJR Tobacco
and/or
B&W) pending as a consolidated action, In re: Tobacco
Litigation Individual Personal Injury Cases. These cases are
proposed to be tried in Kanawha County Circuit Court in a single
proceeding. The West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals ruled
that the U.S. Constitution does not preclude a trial in
multiple phases in this case, and the U.S. Supreme Court
declined to review the issue. The current trial plan provides
for a three-phase proceeding, with certain elements of liability
and entitlement to punitive damages being tried in Phase I.
Phase II would address the ratio between any compensatory
and punitive damages awarded. Phase III would address all
remaining individual issues including medical and legal
causation and compensatory damages. Trial began on
February 1, 2010. On February 3, 2010, a mistrial was
granted due to the inability to seat a jury. Trial has been
continued until June 1, 2010.
Engle
Progeny Cases
Pursuant to the Florida Supreme Courts July 6, 2006,
ruling in Engle v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., which
decertified the class, former class members had one year from
January 11, 2007, in which to file individual lawsuits. In
addition, some individuals who filed suit prior to
January 11, 2007, and who claim they meet the conditions in
Engle, also are attempting to avail themselves of the
Engle ruling. Lawsuits by individuals requesting the
benefit of the Engle ruling, whether filed before or
after the January 11, 2007, mandate, are referred to as the
Engle Progeny Cases. As of January 29, 2010, RJR
Tobacco had been served in 7,711 Engle Progeny Cases in
both state and federal courts in Florida. These cases include
approximately 9,246 plaintiffs. The number of cases will likely
change due to individual plaintiffs being severed from
multi-plaintiff cases. Many of these cases are in active
discovery, and several are expected to be tried in 2010. For
further information on the Engle case, see
Class-Action
Suits Engle Case, below.
Prior to the Florida Supreme Court ruling on July 6, 2006,
RJR Tobacco
and/or
B&W were named as a defendant(s) in several individual
cases filed by members of the Engle class. One such case,
Lukacs v. Philip Morris,
97
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
Inc., was filed in February 2001, and is pending in
Circuit Court, Miami-Dade County, Florida, against the major
U.S. cigarette manufacturers seeking to recover an
unspecified amount in compensatory and punitive damages. The
plaintiff, John Lukacs, alleged that his use of the
defendants brands caused his development of bladder,
throat, oral cavity and tongue cancer. RJR Tobacco was
voluntarily dismissed on May 1, 2002. The case was tried
against Philip Morris, Liggett and B&W, and resulted in a
verdict for the plaintiffs on June 11, 2002. The Florida
state court jury awarded the plaintiffs a total of
$37.5 million in compensatory damages. The jury assigned
22.5% fault to B&W, 72.5% fault to the other defendants and
5% fault to plaintiff John Lukacs. On April 1, 2003, the
Miami-Dade County Circuit Court granted in part the
defendants motion for remittitur and reduced the
jurys award to plaintiff Yolanda Lukacs on the loss of
consortium claim from $12.5 million to $0.125 million,
decreasing the total award to $25.125 million. On
August 2, 2006, the plaintiff filed a motion for entry of
partial judgment and notice of jury trial on punitive damages.
On January 2, 2007, the defendants asked the court to set
aside the jurys verdict for the plaintiff and to dismiss
the plaintiffs punitive damages claim. On January 3,
2007, the plaintiff filed a motion for entry of judgment, which
the court deferred until the U.S. Supreme Court completed
its review of Engle and after further submissions by the
parties. The court granted the plaintiffs motion for entry
of judgment on August 14, 2008 awarding the plaintiff,
Robin Lukacs, as personal representative of the estate of John
and Yolanda Lukacs, the sum of $24.8 million plus interest
applicable at the yearly statutory rates from June 11,
2002. On October 17, 2008, the plaintiff withdrew her
request for punitive damages. On November 12, 2008, the
court entered final judgment. On December 1, 2008, the
defendants filed a notice of appeal. Pursuant to its agreement
to indemnify B&W, RJR Tobacco posted a supersedeas bond in
the amount of approximately $15.2 million on March 19,
2009. Oral argument is scheduled for March 1, 2010.
On May 5, 2009, a jury returned a verdict in favor of the
plaintiff in Sherman v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.,
a case filed in September 2007 in the Circuit Court, Broward
County, Florida. The plaintiff, Melba Sherman, alleged that as a
result of using the defendants products, the decedent,
John Sherman, developed lung cancer and died. The plaintiff
sought actual damages and an unspecified amount of punitive
damages. On May 8, 2009, the jury awarded actual damages of
$1.5 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 on June 8, 2009, which represents
50% of the actual damages award. In June 2009, RJR Tobacco filed
a notice of appeal to the Fourth District Court of Appeal, and
posted a supersedeas bond in the amount of approximately
$900,000. On July 1, 2009, the plaintiff filed a notice of
cross appeal of the final judgment. Briefing is underway.
On May 20, 2009, a jury returned a verdict in favor of the
plaintiff in Brown v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., a
case filed in March 2007, in the Circuit Court, Broward County,
Florida. The plaintiff alleged that the decedent, Roger Brown,
developed smoking related diseases, which resulted in his death.
The plaintiff sought actual damages and an unspecified amount of
punitive damages. On May 22, 2009, the jury returned a
verdict that the decedent was 50% at fault for his injuries and
awarded actual damages of $1.2 million. No punitive damages
were awarded. RJR Tobaccos post-trial motions were denied
on June 12, 2009. The same day, the court entered final
judgment in the amount of $600,000, which represents 50% of the
actual damages award. On July 2, 2009, RJR Tobacco filed a
notice of appeal to the Fourth District Court of Appeal and
posted a supersedeas bond in the amount of approximately
$700,000. Briefing is underway.
On May 29, 2009, in Martin v. R. J. Reynolds
Tobacco Co., a case filed in October 2007 in the Circuit
Court, Escambia County, Florida, a jury returned a verdict in
favor of the plaintiff, found RJR Tobacco to be 66% at fault for
the decedents injuries, and awarded $5 million in
actual damages. The plaintiff alleged that as a result of Benny
Martins use of the defendants tobacco products, he
developed lung cancer and other medical conditions and died. The
plaintiff, Mathilda Martin, sought an unspecified amount of
actual and punitive damages. On June 1, 2009, the jury
returned a punitive damages award of $25 million. The trial
court denied RJR Tobaccos various post-trial motions,
including a motion for a new trial based on defects in the
punitive damages phase, and alternatively, for remittitur of the
punitive damages award. The court entered final judgment on
September 13, 2009, awarding the plaintiff the sum of
$3.3 million in compensatory damages and $25 million
in punitive damages. RJR Tobacco filed a notice of appeal to the
First District Court of Appeal on September 18, 2009. On
October 6, 2009, RJR Tobacco
98
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
posted a supersedeas bond in the amount of approximately
$5 million. On October 8, 2009, the plaintiff filed a
notice of cross-appeal of the final judgment. Briefing is
underway.
In Kaplan v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., a case
filed in October 2007 in the Circuit Court, Broward County,
Florida, jury prequalification began on May 27, 2009. The
plaintiff alleged that as a result of her addiction to the
defendants cigarettes, she suffers from chronic
obstructive pulmonary disease and other alleged smoking-related
medical conditions and diseases. The plaintiff is seeking an
unspecified amount of actual and punitive damages. On
June 1, 2009, the judge declared a mistrial. The trial has
not yet been rescheduled.
On August 19, 2009, in Campbell 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, Betty Campbell, to
be 57% at fault, RJR Tobacco to be 39% at fault, and PM USA and
Liggett Group each to be 2% at fault for the decedents
injuries, and awarded $7.8 million in compensatory damages.
No punitive damages were awarded. The plaintiff alleged that as
a result of Mrs. Campbells addiction to cigarettes,
she suffered and died from various smoking related diseases,
including chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. On
September 13, 2009, the court entered final judgment
against RJR Tobacco in the amount of $3.04 million. The
defendants have filed various post-trial motions and are
awaiting a decision. RJR Tobacco filed a notice of appeal on
January 14, 2010. On January 19, 2010, RJR Tobacco
posted a supersedeas bond in the amount of approximately
$3 million.
On February 5, 2010, in Gray 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 the plaintiff, Carolyn Gray. The jury found the
decedent, Charles Gray, to be 40% at fault, RJR Tobacco to be
60% at fault for Mr. Grays injuries and awarded
$7 million in compensatory damages. On February 8,
2010, the jury awarded $2 million in punitive damages.
Mrs. Gray alleged that as a result of her husbands
addiction and use of RJR Tobaccos products, he died from
lung cancer. Mrs. Gray sought an unspecified amount of
actual and punitive damages.
Broin II
Cases
As of January 29, 2010, there were 2,595 lawsuits pending
in Florida brought by individual flight attendants for personal
injury as a result of illness allegedly caused by exposure to
ETS in airplane cabins, referred to as the Broin II
cases. In these lawsuits, filed pursuant to the terms of the
settlement of the Broin v. Philip Morris, Inc. class
action, discussed below under
Class-Action
Suits, each individual flight attendant will be required
to prove that he or she has a disease and that the
individuals exposure to ETS in airplane cabins caused the
disease. Punitive damages are not available in these cases.
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.
Class-Action
Suits
Overview. As of January 29, 2010, 17
class-action
cases, exclusive of antitrust class actions, were pending in the
United States against RJR Tobacco or its affiliates or
indemnitees. In May 1996, in Castano v. American Tobacco
Co., the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals 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, Minnesota,
Missouri, West Virginia, Georgia, New Mexico and Arizona. All
pending
class-action
cases are discussed below.
99
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
The pending
class-actions
against RJR Tobacco or its affiliates or indemnitees include
nine 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, Minnesota, Missouri, New
Mexico and Arizona 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., discussed
below under Lights
Cases, both of which were filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York
and ultimately decertified.
Medical Monitoring and Smoking Cessation
Case. On November 5, 1998, in
Scott v. American Tobacco Co., a case filed in May
1996 in District Court, Orleans Parish, Louisiana, the trial
court certified a medical monitoring or smoking cessation class
of Louisiana residents who were smokers on or before
May 24, 1996, in an action brought against the major
U.S. cigarette manufacturers, including RJR Tobacco and
B&W, seeking to recover an unspecified amount of
compensatory and punitive damages. On July 28, 2003, the
jury returned a verdict in favor of the defendants on the
plaintiffs claim for medical monitoring and found that
cigarettes were not defectively designed. However, the jury also
made certain findings against the defendants on claims relating
to fraud, conspiracy, marketing to minors and smoking cessation.
Notwithstanding these findings, this portion of the trial did
not determine liability as to any class member or class
representative. What primarily remained in the case was a
class-wide
claim that the defendants pay for a program to help people stop
smoking.
On May 21, 2004, the jury returned a verdict in the amount
of $591 million on the classs claim for a smoking
cessation program. On September 29, 2004, the defendants
posted a $50 million bond, pursuant to legislation that
limits the amount of the bond to $50 million collectively
for MSA signatories, and noticed their appeal. RJR Tobacco
posted $25 million (the portions for RJR Tobacco and
B&W) towards the bond. On February 7, 2007, the
Louisiana Court of Appeals upheld the class certification and
found the defendants responsible for funding smoking cessation
for eligible class members. The appellate court also ruled,
however, that the defendants were not liable for any post-1988
claims, rejected the award of prejudgment interest and struck
eight of the 12 components of the smoking cessation program. In
particular, the appellate court ruled that no class member, who
began smoking after September 1, 1988, could receive any
relief, and that only those smokers, whose claims accrued on or
before September 1, 1988, would be eligible for the smoking
cessation program. The plaintiffs have expressly represented to
the trial court that none of their claims accrued before 1988
and that the class claims did not accrue until around 1996, when
the case was filed. On March 2, 2007, the defendants
application for rehearing and clarification was denied. The
defendants application for writ of certiorari with the
Louisiana Supreme Court was denied on January 7, 2008. The
defendants petition for writ of certiorari with the
U.S. Supreme Court was denied on June 10, 2008. On
July 21, 2008, the trial court entered an amended judgment
in the case. The court found that the defendants are jointly and
severally liable for funding the cost of a court-supervised
smoking cessation program and ordered the defendants to deposit
approximately $263 million together with interest from
June 30, 2004, into a trust for the funding of the program.
The court also stated that it would favorably consider a motion
to return to defendants a portion of unused funds at the close
of each program year in the event the monies allocated for the
preceding program year were not fully expended because of a
reduction in class size or underutilization by the remaining
plaintiffs.
On December 15, 2008, the trial court judge signed an order
granting the defendants an appeal from the amended judgment.
Oral argument in the Louisiana Court of Appeals occurred on
September 1, 2009. A decision is pending.
Jackson v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., filed in May
2009, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Georgia, is another purported RICO class action on behalf of
Georgia smokers claiming that the major U.S. cigarette
100
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
manufacturers, including RJR Tobacco, influenced the National
Cancer Institute not to recommend CT scans as a routine lung
cancer screening test for smokers. The plaintiffs seek a variety
of damages, including alleged contemplated damages under RICO,
punitive damages, attorneys fees, interest and costs. On
July 13, 2009, the defendants filed a motion to stay the
case and, in the alternative, motion to dismiss. The defendants
also have filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim.
Engle Case. Trial began in July 1998 in
Engle v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., a case filed in
May 1994, in Circuit Court, Miami-Dade County, Florida, in which
a class consisting of Florida residents, or their survivors,
alleges diseases or medical conditions caused by their alleged
addiction to cigarettes. The action was brought
against the major U.S. cigarette manufacturers, including
RJR Tobacco and B&W, seeking actual damages and punitive
damages in excess of $100 billion each and the creation of
a medical fund to compensate individuals for future health-care
costs. On July 7, 1999, the jury found against RJR Tobacco,
B&W and the other cigarette-manufacturer defendants in the
initial phase, which included common issues related to certain
elements of liability, general causation and a potential award
of, or entitlement to, punitive damages.
The second phase of the trial, which consisted of the claims of
three of the named class representatives, began on
November 1, 1999. On April 7, 2000, the jury returned
a verdict against all the defendants. It awarded plaintiff Mary
Farnan $2.85 million, the estate of plaintiff Angie Della
Vecchia $4.023 million and plaintiff Frank Amodeo
$5.831 million.
The trial court also ordered the jury in the second phase of the
trial to determine punitive damages, if any, on a
class-wide
basis. On July 14, 2000, the jury returned a punitive
damages verdict in favor of the Florida class of
approximately $145 billion against all the defendants, with
approximately $36.3 billion and $17.6 billion being
assigned to RJR Tobacco and B&W, respectively.
On November 6, 2000, the trial judge denied all post-trial
motions and entered judgment. In November 2000, RJR Tobacco and
B&W posted appeal bonds in the amount of $100 million
each and initiated the appeals process. On May 21, 2003,
Floridas Third District Court of Appeal reversed the trial
courts final judgment and remanded the case to the
Miami-Dade County Circuit Court with instructions to decertify
the class. The class appealed, and the Florida Supreme Court
accepted the case on May 12, 2004.
On July 6, 2006, the court affirmed the dismissal of the
punitive damages award and decertified the class, on a
going-forward basis. The court preserved a number of
class-wide
findings from Phase I of the trial, including that cigarettes
can cause certain diseases, that nicotine is addictive and that
defendants placed defective and unreasonably dangerous
cigarettes on the market, and authorized former class members to
avail themselves of those findings under certain conditions in
individual lawsuits, provided they commence those lawsuits
within one year of the date the courts decision became
final. The court specified that the class is confined to those
Florida citizen residents who suffered or died from
smoking-related illnesses that manifested themselves
on or before November 21, 1996, and that were caused by an
addiction to cigarettes. In addition, the court reinstated the
compensatory damages awards of $2.85 million to Mary Farnan
and $4.023 million to Angie Della Vecchia, but ruled that
the claims of Frank Amodeo were barred by the statute of
limitations. Finally, the court reversed the Third District
Court of Appeals 2003 ruling that class counsels
improper statements during trial required reversal.
On August 7, 2006, RJR Tobacco and the other defendants
filed a rehearing motion arguing, among other things, that the
findings from the Engle trial are not sufficiently
specific to serve as the basis for further proceedings and that
the Florida Supreme Courts decision denied the defendants
due process. On the same day, the plaintiffs also filed a
rehearing motion arguing that some smokers who became sick after
November 21, 1996, and who are therefore not class members,
should nevertheless have the statute of limitations tolled since
they may have refrained from filing suit earlier in the mistaken
belief that they were Engle class members. On
December 21, 2006, the Florida Supreme Court withdrew its
July 6, 2006, decision and issued a revised opinion, in
which it set aside the jurys findings of a conspiracy to
misrepresent and clarified that the Engle jurys
finding on express warranty were preserved for use by eligible
plaintiffs. The court also denied the plaintiffs motion
and confirmed that the class was limited to those individuals
who developed alleged smoking-related illnesses that manifested
themselves on or before November 21, 1996. The court issued
its mandate on January 11, 2007, which began the one-year
period for
101
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
former class members to file individual lawsuits. As of
January 29, 2010, 7,711 individual cases were filed in
Florida as a result of the Engle decision. These cases
include approximately 9,246 plaintiffs. For further information
on the individual cases, see Engle
Progeny Cases above.
In the second quarter of 2007, RJR Tobaccos motions for
discharge of RJR Tobaccos and B&Ws civil
supersedeas bonds related to the punitive damages award were
granted, and RJR Tobacco received the full amount of the
$100 million cash collateral that it had posted. In the
fourth quarter of 2007, the defendants petition for writ
of certiorari and petition for rehearing with the
U.S. Supreme Court were both denied. As a result, the
verdicts in favor of Mary Farnan and Angie Della Vecchia,
mentioned above, became final. On February 8, 2008, RJR
Tobacco paid approximately $5.9 million relating to the
compensatory damages verdicts mentioned above. In May 2008, the
court granted the parties joint motion to sever moving
plaintiffs claims. Plaintiffs Raymond Lacey, Michael Matyi
and Loren Lowery have filed new cases. Plaintiff Howard Engle
filed a stipulation for dismissal with prejudice, which the
court ordered on July 2, 2008. On January 7, 2009,
plaintiff Marilyn Calhouns motion for relief from
judgment, which sought to extend the deadline for filing
Engle Progeny Cases beyond January 11, 2008, was
denied by the Florida Supreme Court.
Since the Florida Supreme Courts July 6, 2006
opinion, six Engle Progeny Cases have proceeded to trial
against RJR Tobacco or B&W. RJR Tobacco expects that other
Engle Progeny Cases will proceed to trial against RJR
Tobacco
and/or
B&W in 2010. For further information on Engle
Progeny Cases, see Engle Progeny
Cases above.
California Business and Professions Code
Cases. On April 11, 2001, in
Brown v. American Tobacco Co., Inc., a case filed in
June 1997 in Superior Court, San Diego County, California,
the court granted in part the plaintiffs motion for
certification of a class composed of residents of California who
smoked at least one of the defendants cigarettes from
June 10, 1993 through April 23, 2001, and who were
exposed to the defendants marketing and advertising
activities in California. The action was brought against the
major U.S. cigarette manufacturers, including RJR Tobacco
and B&W, seeking to recover restitution, disgorgement of
profits and other equitable relief under California Business and
Professions Code § 17200 et seq. and § 17500
et seq. Certification was granted as to the plaintiffs
claims that the defendants violated § 17200 of the
California Business and Professions Code pertaining to unfair
competition. The court, however, refused to certify the class
under the California Legal Remedies Act and on the
plaintiffs common law claims. On March 7, 2005, the
court granted the defendants motion to decertify the
class. On September 5, 2006, the California Court of Appeal
affirmed the judges order decertifying the class. On
November 1, 2006, the plaintiffs petition for review
with the California Supreme Court was granted. On May 18,
2009, the California Supreme Court issued an opinion reversing
the decision issued by the trial court and affirmed by the
California Court of Appeal that decertified the class to the
extent that it was based upon the conclusion that all class
members were required to demonstrate Proposition 64 standing,
and remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings
regarding whether the class representatives have, or can
demonstrate, standing. The defendants petition for
rehearing was denied on August 12, 2009. The case was
remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.
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. On January 21, 2010,
the defendants filed a motion to dismiss.
Lights Cases. As noted above,
lights
class-action
cases are pending against RJR Tobacco or B&W in Illinois
(3), Missouri (2), Minnesota (2), New Mexico (1) and
Arizona (1). 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
102
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
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. On December 15, 2008, 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 Commissions, referred to as FTC,
historic regulation of the industry. Since this decision, a
number of the stayed cases have become active again.
The seminal lights
class-action
case involves RJR Tobaccos 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 to
the State of Illinois. 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. In December
2005, the Illinois Supreme Court reversed the lower courts
decision and sent the case back to the trial court with
instructions to dismiss the case. In December 2006, the
defendants motion to dismiss and for entry of final
judgment was granted, and the case was dismissed with prejudice
the same day. The plaintiffs motion to vacate
and/or
withhold judgment was dismissed by the court on August 30,
2007. On December 18, 2008, the plaintiffs filed a petition
for relief from judgment, stating that the U.S. Supreme
Courts decision in Good v. Altria Group, Inc.
rejected the basis for the reversal. The trial court granted the
defendants motion to dismiss the plaintiffs petition
for relief from judgment on February 4, 2009. On
March 3, 2009, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to
the Illinois Appellate Court, Fifth Judicial District,
requesting a reversal of the February 4, 2009 order and
remand to the circuit court. Briefing is complete. 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 on November 14, 2001.
On June 6, 2003, RJR Tobacco filed a motion to stay the
case pending Philip Morriss appeal of the Price v.
Philip Morris Inc. case mentioned above, which the judge
denied on July 11, 2003. On October 17, 2003, the
Illinois Fifth District Court of Appeals denied RJR
Tobaccos emergency stay/supremacy order request. On
November 5, 2003, the Illinois Supreme Court granted RJR
Tobaccos motion for a stay pending the courts final
appeal decision in Price. On October 11, 2007, the
Illinois Fifth District Court of Appeals dismissed RJR
Tobaccos appeal of the denial of its emergency
stay/supremacy order request and remanded the case to the
circuit court. There is currently no activity in the case.
In Howard v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp.,
another case filed in February 2000 in Circuit Court,
Madison County, Illinois, a judge certified a class on
December 18, 2001. On June 6, 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
Courts stay order on August 19, 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 on
December 31, 2003. On April 9, 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.
On April 16, 2008, the court stayed the case pending
U.S. Supreme Court review in Good v. Altria Group,
Inc., a lights
class-action
pending against Altria and Philip Morris USA. As a result of the
U.S. Supreme Courts decision in Good v.
Altria Group, Inc., this case is likely to become active in
2010.
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 on
September 23, 2005. On October 25, 2005, the
plaintiffs filed a motion to remand, which was granted on
March 17, 2006. On April 16, 2008, the court stayed
the case pending U.S. Supreme Court review in
Good v. Altria Group, Inc. As a result of the
U.S. Supreme Courts decision in Good v.
Altria Group, Inc., this case is likely to become active in
2010.
103
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
In Dahl v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., a case filed
in April 2003, and pending in District Court, Hennepin County,
Minnesota, a judge dismissed the case on May 11, 2005,
ruling the lights claims are preempted by the
Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act. On July 11,
2005, the plaintiffs appealed to the Minnesota Court of Appeals
for the Fourth Judicial District. During the pendency of the
appeal, RJR Tobacco removed the case to the U.S. District
Court for the District of Minnesota. On February 28, 2007,
the Eighth Circuit remanded the case to the Minnesota Court of
Appeals, which on December 4, 2007, reversed the judgment
and remanded the case to the District Court. On
February 27, 2008, RJR Tobaccos motion to stay its
January 3, 2008, petition for review until the completion
of the U.S. Supreme Court review in Good v. Altria
Group, Inc. was granted. On January 20, 2009, the
Minnesota Supreme Court issued an order vacating the
February 27, 2008, order that granted RJR Tobaccos
petition for review. On July 22, 2009, the plaintiffs in
this case and in Thompson v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.,
discussed below, filed a motion to consolidate for discovery
and trial. On October 7, 2009, the court companioned the
two cases and reserved its ruling on the motion to consolidate,
which it said will be reevaluated as discovery progresses.
In Thompson v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., a case
filed in February 2005 in District Court, Hennepin County,
Minnesota, RJR Tobacco removed the case on September 23,
2005, to the U.S. District Court for the District of
Minnesota. On August 7, 2006, the parties filed a
stipulation to stay the case pending resolution of the appeal in
Dahl v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. On
October 29, 2007, the U.S. District Court remanded the
case to the District Court for Hennepin County. On
February 1, 2008, the court stayed the case until the
completion of the appeal in Dahl v. R. J. Reynolds
Tobacco Co. and Good v. Altria Group, Inc., and
that stay has now been lifted. In May 2009, the court entered an
agreed scheduling order that bifurcates merits and class
certification discovery, and the parties are engaged in class
certification discovery. This case is likely to remain active
through 2010. On July 22, 2009, the plaintiffs in this case
and in Dahl v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. filed a
motion to consolidate for discovery and trial. On
October 7, 2009, the court companioned the two cases and
reserved its ruling on the motion to consolidate, which it said
will be reevaluated as discovery progresses.
In Cleary v. Philip Morris, Inc., a case filed in
June 1998, and pending in Circuit Court, Cook County, Illinois,
the plaintiffs filed their motion for class certification on
December 21, 2001, in an action brought against the major
U.S. cigarette manufacturers, including RJR Tobacco and
B&W. The case was brought on behalf of persons who have
allegedly been injured by (1) the defendants
purported conspiracy pursuant to which defendants concealed
material facts regarding the addictive nature of nicotine,
(2) the defendants alleged acts of targeting its
advertising and marketing to minors, and (3) the
defendants claimed breach of the public right to
defendants compliance with the laws prohibiting the
distribution of cigarettes to minors. The plaintiffs requested
that the defendants be required to disgorge all profits unjustly
received through its sale of cigarettes to plaintiffs and the
class, which in no event will be greater than $75,000 per each
class member, inclusive of punitive damages, interest and costs.
On March 27, 2006, the court dismissed count V, public
nuisance, and count VI, unjust enrichment. The plaintiffs filed
an amended complaint on March 3, 2009, to add a claim of
unjust enrichment and to include in the class individuals who
smoked light cigarettes. RJR Tobacco and B&W
answered the amended complaint on March 31, 2009. On
July 5, 2009, the plaintiffs filed an additional motion for
class certification. On September 8, 2009, the court
granted the defendants motion for summary judgment on the
pleadings concerning the lights claims as to all defendants
other than Philip Morris. On October 30, 2009, certain
defendants filed a motion for summary judgment on
plaintiffs youth-marketing claims. Briefing is complete.
In VanDyke v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., a case
filed in August 2009 in the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Mexico, the plaintiffs brought the case on
behalf of all New Mexico residents who from July 1, 2004,
to the date of judgment, purchased, not for resale, the
defendants cigarettes labeled as lights or
ultra lights. The plaintiffs allege fraudulent
misrepresentation, breach of express warranty, breach of implied
warranties of merchantability and of fitness for a particular
purpose, violations of the New Mexico Unfair Practices Act,
unjust enrichment, negligence and gross negligence. The
plaintiffs seek a variety of damages, including actual,
compensatory and consequential damages to the plaintiff and the
class but not damages for personal injury or health-care claims.
104
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
In Shaffer v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., a case
filed in October 2009 in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Arizona, the plaintiffs brought the case on behalf
of all persons residing in Arizona who purchased, not for
resale, defendants cigarettes labeled as light
or ultra-light from the date of the defendants
first sales of such cigarettes in Arizona to the date of
judgment. The plaintiffs allege consumer fraud, concealment,
nondisclosure, negligent misrepresentation and unjust
enrichment. The plaintiffs seek a variety of damages, including
compensatory, restitutionary and punitive damages.
In the event RJR Tobacco and its affiliates or indemnitees lose
one or more of the pending lights
class-action
suits, RJR Tobacco could face bonding difficulties depending
upon the amount of damages ordered, if any, which could have a
material adverse effect on RJR Tobaccos, and consequently
RAIs, results of operations, cash flows or financial
position.
Other Class Actions. 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. On October 13, 2004, the trial court
stayed this case pending the outcome of the appeal in
Scott v. American Tobacco Co., Inc., discussed above
under Medical Monitoring and Smoking
Cessation Cases.
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. The case has been stayed pending a
final resolution of the plaintiffs motion to refer tobacco
litigation to the judicial panel on multi-district litigation
filed in In Re: Tobacco Litigation in the Supreme Court
of Appeals of West Virginia. On December 26, 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 on
February 16, 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, on behalf of 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 on February 17,
1999. There has been limited activity in this case.
Broin Settlement. 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
counsels fees and expenses. RJR Tobaccos portion of
these payments was approximately $86 million;
B&Ws 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
105
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
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 plaintiffs 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 II
cases, discussed above, arose out of the settlement of 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 persons medical
expenses is legally too remote to maintain an action against the
person allegedly responsible for the injury.
As of January 29, 2010, four 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.
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.
|
106
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
Set forth below are tables depicting the unadjusted tobacco
industry settlement payment schedule and the settlement payment
schedule for RAIs operating subsidiaries under the State
Settlement Agreements, and related information for 2007 and
beyond:
Unadjusted
Original Participating Manufacturers Settlement Payment
Schedule
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2013 and
|
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2011
|
|
|
2012
|
|
|
thereafter
|
|
|
First Four States
Settlements:(1)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mississippi Annual Payment
|
|
$
|
136
|
|
|
$
|
136
|
|
|
$
|
136
|
|
|
$
|
136
|
|
|
$
|
136
|
|
|
$
|
136
|
|
|
$
|
136
|
|
Florida Annual Payment
|
|
|
440
|
|
|
|
440
|
|
|
|
440
|
|
|
|
440
|
|
|
|
440
|
|
|
|
440
|
|
|
|
440
|
|
Texas Annual Payment
|
|
|
580
|
|
|
|
580
|
|
|
|
580
|
|
|
|
580
|
|
|
|
580
|
|
|
|
580
|
|
|
|
580
|
|
Minnesota Annual Payment
|
|
|
204
|
|
|
|
204
|
|
|
|
204
|
|
|
|
204
|
|
|
|
204
|
|
|
|
204
|
|
|
|
204
|
|
Remaining States Settlement:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Annual
Payments(1)
|
|
|
7,004
|
|
|
|
8,004
|
|
|
|
8,004
|
|
|
|
8,004
|
|
|
|
8,004
|
|
|
|
8,004
|
|
|
|
8,004
|
|
Base Foundation Funding
|
|
|
25
|
|
|
|
25
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Growers
Trust(2)
|
|
|
500
|
|
|
|
500
|
|
|
|
295
|
|
|
|
295
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Offset by federal tobacco
buyout(2)
|
|
|
(500
|
)
|
|
|
(500
|
)
|
|
|
(295
|
)
|
|
|
(295
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$
|
8,389
|
|
|
$
|
9,389
|
|
|
$
|
9,364
|
|
|
$
|
9,364
|
|
|
$
|
9,364
|
|
|
$
|
9,364
|
|
|
$
|
9,364
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
RAIs Operating
Subsidiaries Settlement Expenses and Payment
Schedule
|
Settlement expenses
|
|
$
|
2,821
|
|
|
$
|
2,703
|
|
|
$
|
2,540
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Settlement cash payments
|
|
$
|
2,616
|
|
|
$
|
2,830
|
|
|
$
|
2,249
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Projected settlement expenses
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
>2,700
|
|
|
$
|
>2,700
|
|
|
$
|
>2,700
|
|
|
$
|
>2,700
|
|
Projected settlement cash payments
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
>2,500
|
|
|
$
|
>2,700
|
|
|
$
|
>2,700
|
|
|
$
|
>2,700
|
|
|
|
|
(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. |
|
(2) |
|
The Growers Trust payments scheduled to expire in 2010
will be offset by obligations resulting from the federal tobacco
buyout legislation, not included in this table, signed in
October 2004. See Tobacco Buyout Legislation
and Related Litigation 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 Tobaccos 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 Tobaccos 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.
Department of Justice Case. On
September 22, 1999, 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. 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 governments claims
107
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
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 governments 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 on June 10, 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 courts 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 on September 11, 2006. The government filed its
notice of appeal on October 16, 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
courts order pending the defendants appeal. The
court granted the motion on October 31, 2006.
On November 28, 2006, the court of appeals stayed the
appeals pending the trial courts ruling on the
defendants motion for clarification. The defendants
motion for clarification was granted in part and denied in part
on March 16, 2007. The defendants motion as to the
meaning and applicability of the general injunctive relief of
the August 17, 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.
On May 22, 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 B&Ws 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 subsidiaries satisfy Rule 65(d);
|
|
|
|
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.
|
108
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
The defendants motion for rehearing
and/or
rehearing en banc was denied on September 22, 2009.
On October 21, 2009, the defendants motion to stay
issuance of the mandate pending the filing and disposition of
petitions for writ of certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court
was granted. Petitions for writ of certiorari from the
U.S. Supreme Court are due on February 19, 2010. In
addition, the Department of Justice may include in its writ
petition a request for reinstatement of its claims for remedies,
including disgorgement of profits.
International Cases. 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 those foreign Provincial governments in
treating their citizens. No such cases currently are pending in
the United States against RJR Tobacco and its current or former
affiliates or indemnitees.
Four health-care reimbursement cases are pending against RJR
Tobacco, its current or former affiliates, or B&W outside
the United States, three in Canada and one in Israel. Pursuant
to the terms of the 1999 sale of RJR Tobaccos
international tobacco business, RJR Tobacco has tendered the
defense of these actions to JTI. JTI has, subject to a
reservation of rights, assumed RJR Tobacco and its current or
former affiliates liability, if any, and is defending
those actions.
On November 12, 1998, the government of British Columbia
enacted legislation creating a civil cause of action permitting
the government to recover the costs of health-care benefits
incurred for insured populations of B.C. residents resulting
from tobacco-related disease. The governments subsequent
suit against Canadian defendants and foreign defendants,
including RJR Tobacco was dismissed in February 2000, when the
B.C. Supreme Court ruled that the legislation was
unconstitutional and set aside service ex juris against the
foreign defendants for that reason. The government then enacted
a revised statute and brought a new action, filed in January
2001, and pending in Supreme Court, British Columbia. The
plaintiff seeks to recover the present value of the total
expenditure by the government 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 the estimated
total expenditure by the government 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 plaintiff alleges that the defendants are liable
under the following theories: defective product, failure to
warn, sale of cigarettes to children and adolescents, strict
liability, deceit and misrepresentation, and violation of trade
practice and competition acts. In September 2008, the trial date
of September 6, 2010, was adjourned to a target trial date
in September 2011.
On March 13, 2008, a case was filed on behalf of Her
Majesty the Queen in Right of the Province of
New Brunswick, Canada, against certain cigarette
manufacturers, including RJR Tobacco, in the Trial Division in
the Court of Queens Bench of New Brunswick. The claim is
brought pursuant to New Brunswick legislation that is
substantially similar to that enacted in British Columbia. The
plaintiff seeks to recover the present value of total
expenditures by the Province for health care benefits resulting
from tobacco-related diseases or risk of tobacco-related
diseases, costs or special or increased costs and present value
of estimated future expenditure. The plaintiff alleges that the
defendants are liable under the following theories: deceit and
misrepresentation, failure to warn, promotion of cigarettes to
children and adolescents, negligent design and manufacture,
breaches of other common law, equitable and statutory duties and
obligations action in Canada. On June 26, 2008, RJR Tobacco
filed a notice of intent to defend.
On September 30, 2009, a case was filed on behalf of Her
Majesty the Queen in Right of the Province of Ontario, Canada,
against certain cigarette manufacturers, including RJR Tobacco,
in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice. The plaintiff seeks to
recover the present value of total expenditures by the Province
for health care benefits resulting or expecting to result from
tobacco-related diseases or risk of tobacco-related diseases,
costs or special or increased costs. The plaintiff alleges that
the defendants are liable under the following theories: deceit
and misrepresentation, failure to warn, promotion of cigarettes
to children and adolescents, negligent design and manufacture,
breaches of other common law, equitable and statutory duties and
obligations . RJR Tobacco has yet to enter its appearance in the
case although it has indicated that it will challenge
jurisdiction.
109
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
On September 1, 1998, the General Health Services,
Israels second largest health fund, filed a statement of
claim against certain cigarette manufacturers and distributors,
including RJR Tobacco, RJR Nabisco and B&W, in the District
Court of Jerusalem, Israel. The plaintiff seeks to recover the
past and future value of the total expenditures for health-care
services provided by it to certain residents of Israel
resulting from tobacco-related disease, court ordered interest
for past expenditures from date of filing the statement of
claim, increased
and/or
punitive
and/or
exemplary damages and costs. The plaintiff alleges that the
defendants are liable under the following theories: negligence,
public nuisance, fraud, misleading advertisement, defective
product, failure to warn, sale of cigarettes to children and
adolescents, strict liability, deceit, concealment,
misrepresentation and conspiracy. In 2002, the plaintiff
obtained leave to serve RJR Tobacco and B&W outside the
jurisdiction. On behalf of RJR Tobacco, JTI filed a motion
challenging the grant of leave, which was denied. JTI appealed
the decision to the Supreme Court of Israel alongside other
defendants applications for a strike out of the claim. A
decision is pending.
The following four claims and requests for class certification
were filed in Canada against various defendants, including RJR
Tobacco, although only one, in Saskatchewan, Canada, is being
taken forward at this stage. Pursuant to the terms of the 1999
sale of RJR Tobaccos international tobacco business, RJR
Tobacco has tendered the defense of these actions to JTI. JTI,
has, subject to a reservation of rights, assumed RJR
Tobaccos and its current or former affiliates
liability, if any, and is defending those actions.
In Adams v. Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers Council,
a case filed in July 2009 in the Court of Queens Bench for
Saskatchewan against certain cigarette manufacturers, including
RJR Tobacco, the plaintiffs brought the case on behalf 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.
In Dorion v. Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers
Council, a case filed in June 2009, in the Court of
Queens Bench of Alberta against certain cigarette
manufacturers, including RJR Tobacco, the plaintiffs brought the
case on behalf of all individuals, including their estates,
dependants and family members, who purchased or smoked
cigarettes designed, manufactured, marketed or distributed by
the defendants.
In Kunka v. Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers Council,
a case filed in 2009 in the Court of Queens Bench of
Manitoba against certain cigarette manufacturers, including RJR
Tobacco, the plaintiffs brought the case on behalf of all
individuals, including their estates, and their dependants and
family members, who purchased or smoked cigarettes manufactured
by the defendants.
In Semple v. Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers
Council, a case filed in June 2009 in the Supreme Court of
Nova Scotia against certain cigarette manufacturers, including
RJR Tobacco, the plaintiffs brought the case on behalf of all
individuals, including their estates, dependants and family
members, who purchased or smoked cigarettes designed,
manufactured, marketed or distributed by the defendants for the
period of January 1, 1954, to the expiry of the opt out
period as set by the court. In each of the above 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, and unjust
enrichment. The plaintiffs seek compensatory and aggravated
damages; punitive or exemplary damages; reimbursement of
tobacco-related health-care costs paid by the government; the
right to waive the torts described above and claim disgorgement
of the amount of revenues or profits the defendants received
from the sale of tobacco products to putative class members;
interest pursuant to the Pre-judgment Interest Act and other
similar legislation; and other relief the court deems just.
Native American Tribe Cases. As of
January 29, 2010, 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
110
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
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.
Hospital Cases. As of January 29, 2010,
one case brought by hospitals was pending against cigarette
manufacturers, including RJR Tobacco and B&W: City of
St. Louis v. American Tobacco Co., Inc., filed in
November 1998, and pending in the Circuit Court of the City of
St. Louis, Missouri. This case seeks recovery of
uncompensated, unreimbursed health-care costs expended or to be
expended by hospitals on behalf of patients who suffer, or have
suffered, from illnesses allegedly resulting from the use of
cigarettes. On June 28, 2005, the court granted the
defendants motion for summary judgment as to claims for
damages which accrued prior to November 16, 1993. The
claims for damages which accrued after November 16, 1993,
are still pending. The case is in discovery. Trial is scheduled
for June 7, 2010. In 2009, RJR Tobacco filed a motion for
summary judgment based on the plaintiffs lack of proof
linking the defendants allegedly wrongful conduct with the
claimed damages. On June 30, 2009, the court denied that
motion, but granted leave to the plaintiffs to file additional
expert reports on or before September 30, 2009. The
plaintiffs filed additional expert reports on September 30,
2009, in which they named a new expert and raised new liability
theories. On September 11, 2009, the defendants filed a
motion for partial summary judgment on the plaintiffs
claims for future damages and for fraud. On December 1,
2009, the defendants renewed their motion for summary judgment
based on the plaintiffs lack of proof linking
defendants allegedly wrongful conduct with the claimed
damages. At the same time, the defendants filed motions for
summary judgment based upon plaintiffs failure to prove
unreimbursed costs and plaintiffs failure to show fact of
injury or damage, as well as motions for partial summary
judgment on plaintiffs marketing claims, product liability
claims, restitution claims, misrepresentation/concealment
claims, failure to warn claims, claims for pre-judgment
interest, and motions for partial summary judgment based on
release and res judicata and preemption. All of these motions
are currently pending before the court. While the parties await
rulings on these motions, the case remains in active discovery
and now has a tentative trial date of January 10, 2011.
Other Cases. On May 20, 2008, the
National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare
filed a case against the major U.S. cigarette
manufacturers, including RJR Tobacco, in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of New York. The case seeks to
recover twice the amount paid by Medicare for health services
provided to Medicare beneficiaries to treat their diseases
attributable to smoking the defendants cigarettes from
May 21, 2002, to the present, for which treatment the
defendants were required or responsible to make
payment under the Medicare Secondary Payer Act. On
July 21, 2008, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss for
failure to state a claim for lack of standing. On the same day,
the plaintiffs filed a motion for summary judgment as to
liability under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 56(d)(2).
On March 5, 2009, the court granted the defendants
motion to dismiss and denied the plaintiffs cross-motion
for summary judgment. The plaintiffs motion for
reconsideration was denied on April 24, 2009. On
May 20, 2009, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to
the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. On September 1, 2009,
the defendants filed a motion for summary affirmance, or in the
alternative, to dismiss the appeal for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction and for stay of the briefing schedule. The stay was
granted on September 3, 2009, pending determination of the
motion for summary affirmance. On January 13, 2010, the
Second Circuit Court of Appeals referred the motion for summary
affirmance to the Merits Panel and ordered briefing on the
motion.
On August 31, 2009, RJR Tobacco and Conwood joined other
tobacco manufacturers and a tobacco retailer in filing a lawsuit
in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Kentucky (Commonwealth Brands, Inc., v. United States of
America), challenging certain provisions of the Family
Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act of 2009, referred to
as the FDA Tobacco Act, that severely restricts the few
remaining channels available to communicate with adult tobacco
consumers. RAI believes these provisions cannot be justified on
any basis consistent with the demands of the First Amendment.
The suit does not challenge Congresss decision to give the
U.S. Food and Drug Administration, referred to as the FDA,
regulatory authority over tobacco products, nor does it
challenge the vast majority of the provisions of the new law. On
November 5, 2009, the court denied certain plaintiffs
motion for preliminary injunction as to the Modified Risk
Tobacco Products Provision. On December 13, 2009, the
parties finished briefing their respective cross-motions for
summary judgment. On January 5, 2010, the court issued its
ruling, granting summary judgment for the plaintiffs so as to
allow the continued use of color and
111
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
imagery in labeling and advertising and the right to make
statements that their products conform to FDA regulatory
requirements. The court granted summary judgment to the
Government as to all other challenged provisions. For a detailed
description of the FDA Tobacco Act, see
Governmental Activity in
Managements Discussion and Analysis of Financial
Condition and Results of Operations, in Item 7.
State
Settlement Agreements-Enforcement and Validity
As of January 29, 2010, there were 58 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
is seeking 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. A decision is pending.
On April 13, 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. On
April 28, 2005, B&W advised the state that it did not
owe the state any money. On August 11, 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. This matter is currently in the discovery
phase.
On May 17, 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 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. Discovery in this
matter is underway.
On October 28, 2008, Vibo Corporation, Inc. d/b/a General
Tobacco, referred to as General, filed a complaint in the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky
against RJR Tobacco and other participating manufacturers,
referred to as PMs, under the MSA, and the Attorneys General of
the 52 states and territories that are parties to the MSA.
General sought, among other things, to enjoin enforcement of
certain provisions of the MSA and an order relieving it of
certain of its payment obligations under the MSA and, in the
event such relief was not granted, rescission of Generals
2004 agreement to join the MSA. General also moved for a
preliminary injunction that, among other things, would have
enjoined the states from enforcing certain of Generals
payment obligations under the MSA. On November 14, 2008,
RJR Tobacco and the other defendants moved to dismiss
Generals complaint. On January 5, 2009, the court
issued a memorandum opinion and order granting the
defendants motions and dismissing Generals lawsuit.
Final judgment was entered on January 5, 2010. On
January 13, 2010, General noticed its appeal of this
decision.
On December 11, 2008, General filed a second complaint, for
declaratory relief under the MSA in the California Superior
Court for the County of San Diego against the State of
California and RJR Tobacco and other PMs under the MSA.
Generals complaint seeks a declaration that a proposed
amendment to its agreement to join the MSA, under which it would
no longer have to make certain MSA payments, did not trigger the
MSAs most favored nations provision or require
that the settling states agree to make similar payment relief
available to other PMs. RJR Tobacco filed an answer to the
complaint on February 17, 2009. On March 9, 2009, RJR
Tobacco and certain other PMs filed a motion for summary
judgment or, in the alternative, for summary adjudication. On
March 17, 2009, a group of subsequent participating
manufacturers, referred to as SPMs, filed a similar motion. The
SPMs motion was granted on July 20, 2009. RJR
Tobaccos and certain other PMs motion for summary
judgment
112
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
was granted on July 21, 2009. On September 4, 2009,
the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal. The defendants filed a
motion to dismiss the appeal on December 23, 2009. On
January 14, 2010, General voluntarily dismissed its appeal
in this action.
In December 2007, nine states (California, Connecticut,
Illinois, Maine, Maryland, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania and
Washington) sued RJR Tobacco claiming that an advertisement
published in Rolling Stone magazine the prior month violated the
MSAs ban on the use of cartoons. The states asserted that
the magazines content adjacent to a Camel gatefold
advertisement included cartoon images prohibited by the MSA and
that certain images used in the Camel ad itself were prohibited
cartoons. In addition, three states (Connecticut, New York and
Maryland) also claimed that a direct mail piece distributed by
RJR Tobacco violated the MSA prohibition against distributing
utilitarian items bearing a tobacco brand name. Each state
sought injunctive relief and punitive monetary sanctions. Eight
of the nine courts have since ruled that the states are not
entitled to the punitive sanctions being sought. (The issue has
not been resolved definitively by the other court at this time.)
Six of these magazine advertisement cases have been ruled upon
following bench trials:
|
|
|
|
|
In Maine, RJR Tobacco received a complete defense ruling.
|
|
|
|
In Washington, the Washington Court of Appeals recently
reversed, in part, a favorable ruling in favor of RJR Tobacco at
the trial court, holding that some of the images used in the RJR
Tobacco advertisement were cartoons, and has remanded the case
for further proceedings.
|
|
|
|
In Ohio, the court agreed that the Camel advertisement did not
use any cartoons, but ruled that the company should have
prevented the use of cartoons in magazine-created content next
to the RJR Tobacco advertisement. RJR Tobacco appealed this
decision, and the Court of Appeals reversed the trial
courts ruling regarding RJR Tobaccos duty to prevent
the use of cartoons in adjacent magazine-created content, thus
giving RJR Tobacco a complete defense ruling.
|
|
|
|
The court in California ruled that the company was not liable
for preventing the use of cartoons in magazine-created content
next to the RJR Tobacco advertisement, but that a few of the
images in the RJR Tobacco advertisement itself were
technical and unintentional cartoons. No monetary
sanctions were awarded by the Ohio or California courts.
|
|
|
|
The Pennsylvania court ruled against RJR Tobacco on both claims,
agreeing with the Commonwealth that the RJR Tobacco
advertisement contained unspecified cartoons and that RJR
Tobacco was responsible for the cartoons included in the
magazine created content, regardless of whether the company was
aware of it in advance. In addition, the Pennsylvania court
ordered RJR Tobacco to pay for the creation of a single page
youth smoking prevention advertisement in Rolling Stone issues
in Pennsylvania within a year, or pay a penalty of approximately
$302,000, if it fails to do so.
|
|
|
|
In Illinois, RJR Tobacco received a complete defense ruling.
|
RJR Tobacco believes it has strong bases for appeal in the
California, Washington and Pennsylvania cases.
Finally, in Stewart v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., a
class-action
suit was filed in California state court in December 2007,
against the magazines publisher, Wenner Media, and RJR
Tobacco, claiming the mention of bands in the magazine-created
content violated their right of publicity. The plaintiffs seek
compensatory and punitive damages. This case has been stayed
pending interlocutory review of an order denying
defendants motion to dismiss.
NPM Adjustment. The MSA includes an
adjustment, referred to as an NPM Adjustment, that potentially
reduces the annual payment obligations of RJR Tobacco and the
other PMs. Certain requirements, collectively
113
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
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 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.
|
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 states 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, on
April 17, 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 Tobaccos share of the 2003 NPM
Adjustment as calculated by the MSA independent auditor. On
March 28, 2007, the independent auditor issued revised
calculations that reduced RJR Tobaccos share of the NPM
Adjustment for 2003 to approximately $615 million. As a
result, on April 19, 2007, RJR Tobacco instructed the
independent auditor to release to the settling states
approximately $32 million from the disputed payments
account.
Following RJR Tobaccos 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 MSAs arbitration provisions,
moved to compel arbitration of the parties dispute
concerning the 2003 NPM Adjustment, including the States
diligent enforcement claims, before a single, nationwide
arbitration panel of three former federal 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 January 29, 2010, 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. On August 5, 2009, the last court
to address the issue, the Montana Supreme Court, revised a
ruling by the Montana First Judicial District Court, and ruled
that the state of Montana did not agree to arbitrate the
question of whether it diligently enforced a qualifying statute.
A petition for rehearing was filed by RJR Tobacco and certain
other PMs on August 20, 2009. On September 10, 2009,
the petition for rehearing was denied. On January 29, 2010,
RJR Tobacco and certain other PMs filed a petition for writ of
certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court, seeking review of
the decision of the Montana Supreme Court. The orders compelling
arbitration in the remaining 47 states are now final
and/or
non-appealable.
As of January 30, 2009, RJR Tobacco and certain other PMs
entered into an Agreement Regarding Arbitration, referred to as
the Arbitration Agreement, with 45 of the settling states,
representing approximately 90% of the allocable share of the
settling states. The Arbitration Agreement established
October 1, 2009, as the date by which arbitration begins.
Pursuant to the Arbitration Agreement, signing states will have
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 have,
without releasing or waiving any claims, authorized the release
of those funds to the settling states.
Montana is one of the settling states that signed the
Arbitration Agreement. Thus, notwithstanding the ruling of the
Montana Supreme Court with respect to the arbitrability of the
Diligent Enforcement issue, Montana is
114
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
contractually obligated to participate with the other states in
the arbitration that will address all remaining issues related
to the dispute pertaining to the 2003 NPM Adjustment.
Other NPM Adjustment Claims. From 2006 to
2008, proceedings were initiated with respect to an NPM
Adjustment for 2004, 2005 and 2006. The Adjustment Requirements
were satisfied with respect to the NPM Adjustment for each of
2004, 2005 and 2006. As a result:
|
|
|
|
|
in April 2007, RJR Tobacco placed approximately
$561 million of its 2007 MSA payment (representing its
share of the 2004 NPM Adjustment as calculated by the MSA
independent auditor), and in April 2008, placed approximately
$431 million of its 2008 MSA payment (representing its
share of the 2005 NPM Adjustment as calculated by the
independent auditor, net of certain slight adjustments to
reflect revised independent auditor calculations of RJR
Tobaccos share of the 2003 and 2004 NPM Adjustments) into
the disputed payments account; and
|
|
|
|
in April 2009, RJR Tobacco retained approximately
$406.5 million of its 2009 MSA payment to reflect its share
of the 2006 NPM Adjustment as calculated by the independent
auditor.
|
The MSA permits PMs to retain disputed payment amounts pending
resolution of the dispute. If the resolution of the dispute
ultimately requires a PM to pay some or all of the disputed
amount, then the amount deemed to be due includes interest
calculated from the date the payment was originally due at the
prime rate plus three percent.
In addition to the NPM Adjustment claims described above, RJR
Tobacco has filed dispute notices with respect to its 2007,
2008, and 2009 annual MSA payments relating to the NPM
Adjustments potentially applicable to those years. The total
amount at issue for those three years is approximately
$1.367 billion.
On June 30, 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 provides that the settling states will 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 will become 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 will pay a total amount of
$5 million into the States Antitrust/Consumer
Protection Tobacco Enforcement Fund for each year covered by
that agreement, with RJR Tobacco paying approximately 47% of
such amounts.
Due to the uncertainty over the final resolution of the NPM
Adjustment claims asserted by RJR Tobacco, no assurances can be
made related to the amounts, if any, that will be realized.
Antitrust
Cases
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
January 29, 2010, all of the federal and state court cases
on behalf of indirect purchasers have been dismissed, except for
one state court case pending in each of Kansas and in New Mexico.
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 on November 15, 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. The parties are currently engaged in
discovery.
In Romero v. Philip Morris Cos., Inc., a case filed in
April 2000 in District Court, Rio Arriba County,
New Mexico, the court granted class certification on
May 14, 2003, in an action brought against the major
115
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
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 amount not to exceed $74,000 per class member in
actual and punitive damages, exclusive of interest and costs.
The plaintiffs allege that the defendants conspired to fix,
raise, advance
and/or
stabilize prices for cigarettes in the State of New Mexico from
at least as early as January 1, 1998, through the present.
On June 30, 2006, the court granted the defendants
motion for summary judgment. On November 18, 2008, the New
Mexico Court of Appeals reversed the grant of summary judgment
in favor of RJR Tobacco, B&W and Philip Morris. On
January 7, 2009, RJR Tobacco filed a petition for a writ of
certiorari, and on February 27, 2009, the Supreme Court of
the State of New Mexico granted that petition. Briefing is
complete, and oral argument is scheduled for February 22,
2010.
Other
Litigation and Developments
By purchase agreement dated May 12, 1999, referred to as
the 1999 Purchase Agreement, RJR and RJR Tobacco sold the
international tobacco business to JTI. RJR and RJR Tobacco
retained certain liabilities relating to the activities of
Northern Brands, including those relating to a 1998 guilty plea
entered in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of New York, as well as an investigation conducted by
the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, referred to as RCMP, for
possible violations of Canadian law related to the activities
that led to the Northern Brands guilty plea and certain conduct
by Stanley Smith, a former executive of RJR-Macdonald, Inc.,
referred to as RJR-MI, which led to the termination of his
severance agreement. Under its reading of the indemnification
provisions of the 1999 Purchase Agreement, JTI has requested
indemnification for any damages arising out of the matters
described below:
|
|
|
|
|
In February 2003, the RCMP filed criminal charges in the
Province of Ontario against, and purported to serve summonses
on, JTI-Macdonald Corp., referred to as JTI-MC, Northern Brands,
R. J. Reynolds Tobacco International, Inc., referred to as
RJR-TI, R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., Puerto Rico, referred to as
RJR-PR, and eight individuals associated with RJR-MI
and/or
RJR-TI during the period January 1, 1991, through
December 31, 1996. The charges allege fraud and conspiracy
to defraud Canada and the Provinces of Ontario and Quebec in
connection with the purchase, sale, export, import
and/or
re-export of cigarettes
and/or fine
cut tobacco. In October 2003, Northern Brands, RJR-TI and RJR-PR
each challenged both the propriety of the service of the
summonses and the jurisdiction of the court. On February 9,
2004, the Superior Court of Justice ruled in favor of these
companies. The government filed a notice of appeal from that
ruling, and in 2007, the Court of Appeal announced a unanimous
decision in favor of the companies position and dismissed
the governments appeal.
|
A preliminary hearing commenced on April 11, 2005, for the
purpose of determining whether the Canadian prosecutor had
sufficient evidence supporting the criminal charges to justify a
trial of the defendants that had been properly served to date.
On May 30, 2007, the court announced its decision to issue
an order committing two of the accused, JTI-MC and Edward Lang,
to stand trial on the charges filed in February 2003 and
discharging the other six accused. JTI-MC and Mr. Lang
separately filed papers seeking an order quashing the order
committing them to stand trial, and the government filed papers
seeking an order quashing the order discharging six of the
accused. On December 19, 2007, JTI-MC abandoned its effort
to have the order committing it to trial quashed. On
February 19, 2008, the Superior Court of Justice in Ontario
denied Mr. Langs request to quash the order
committing him to trial. The court granted the governments
request to quash the order discharging six individuals and
remanded the matter to the preliminary hearing judge for
reconsideration. No appeals were taken from that decision. The
matter is currently being reconsidered by the preliminary
hearing judge.
On October 31, 2007, the Office of the Attorney General of
Ontario confirmed that the prosecutors request for
preferred indictments against RJR-TI, RJR-PR and Northern Brands
had been denied at that point in time.
|
|
|
|
|
In July 2003, a Statement of Claim was filed against JTI-MC and
others in the Superior Court of Justice, Ontario, Canada by
Leslie and Kathleen Thompson. Mr. Thompson is a former
employee of Northern
|
116
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
|
|
|
|
|
Brands and JTI-MCs predecessor, RJR-MI. Mr. and
Mrs. Thompson have alleged breach of contract, breach of
fiduciary duty and negligent misrepresentation, among other
claims. They are seeking lost wages and other damages, including
punitive damages, in an aggregate amount exceeding
$12 million.
|
|
|
|
|
|
On September 18, 2003, RJR, RJR Tobacco, RJR-TI, RJR-PR,
and Northern Brands were served with a Statement of Claim filed
in August 2003 by the Attorney General of Canada in the Superior
Court of Justice, Ontario, Canada. Also named as defendants are
JTI and a number of its affiliates. The Statement of Claim seeks
to recover taxes and duties allegedly not paid as a result of
cigarette smuggling and related activities. As filed, the
Attorney Generals Statement of Claim seeks to recover
$1.5 billion Canadian in compensatory damages and
$50 million Canadian in punitive damages, as well as
equitable and other forms of relief. However, in the
Companies Creditor Arrangement Act proceeding described
below, the Attorney General amended and increased Canadas
claim to $4.3 billion Canadian. The parties have agreed to
a stay of all proceedings pending in the Superior Court of
Justice, subject to notice by one of the parties that it wishes
to terminate the stay. On January 15, 2009, the Court
ordered that the deadline for setting the action for trial is
January 31, 2011.
|
|
|
|
In August 2004, the Quebec Ministry of Revenue (1) issued a
tax assessment, covering the period January 1, 1990,
through December 31, 1998, against JTI-MC for alleged
unpaid duties, penalties and interest in an amount of about
$1.36 billion Canadian; (2) issued an order for the
immediate payment of that amount; and (3) obtained an ex
parte judgment to enforce the payment of that amount. On
August 24, 2004, JTI-MC applied for protection under the
Companies Creditor Arrangement Act in the Ontario Superior
Court of Justice, Toronto, Canada, referred to as CCAA
Proceedings, and the court entered an order staying the Quebec
Ministry of Revenues proceedings as well as other claims
and proceedings against JTI-MC. The stay has been extended to
March 15, 2010. In November 2004, JTI-MC filed a motion in
the Superior Court, Province of Quebec, District of Montreal,
seeking a declaratory judgment to set aside, annul and declare
inoperative the tax assessment and all ancillary enforcement
measures and to require the Quebec Minister of Revenue to
reimburse JTI-MC for funds unduly appropriated, along with
interest and other relief. Pursuant to a court-imposed deadline,
Canada and several Provinces filed Crown claims against JTI-MC
in the CCAA Proceedings in the following amounts: Canada,
$4.3 billion Canadian; Ontario, $1.5 billion Canadian;
New Brunswick, $1.5 billion Canadian; Quebec,
$1.4 billion Canadian; British Columbia, $450 million
Canadian; Nova Scotia, $326 million Canadian; Prince Edward
Island, $75 million Canadian and Manitoba, $23 million
Canadian. In the CCAA Proceedings, the Canadian federal
government and some of the provincial governments have asserted
that they can make the same tax and related claims against RJR
and certain of its subsidiaries, including RJR Tobacco. To date,
none of those provincial governments have filed and served RJR
or any of its affiliates with a formal Statement of Claim like
the Canadian federal government did in August and September
2003. Discussions regarding possible
agreed-upon
procedures for adjudicating and appellate review of the claims
and defenses asserted in the CCAA Proceedings are taking place.
|
|
|
|
On November 17, 2004, a Statement of Claim was filed
against JTI-MC in the Supreme Court of British Columbia by
Stanley Smith, a former executive of RJR-MI, for alleged breach
of contract and other legal theories. Mr. Smith is claiming
$840,000 Canadian for salary allegedly owed under his severance
agreement with RJR-MI, as well as other unspecified compensatory
and punitive damages. Mr. Smith subsequently filed a
substantively identical claim in the Superior Court of Justice
in Ontario and proposed that the action be tried in Toronto.
|
|
|
|
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.
|
117
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
|
|
|
|
|
On December 14, 2007, the European Community and 26 member
states entered into a series of agreements with JTI
and/or its
subsidiaries regarding, principally, contraband and counterfeit
cigarettes bearing JTI trademarks in the European Community.
Collectively, those agreements resolved, in pertinent part, all
claims that the European Community and member states either had
or might have had prior to December 14, 2007, against JTI
and/or its
subsidiaries with respect to any such contraband and counterfeit
cigarettes and claims for which JTI could become the subject of
a claim for indemnity by RJR under the terms of the 1999
Purchase Agreement. In addition, the European Community and
signatory member states agreed to release RJR and its affiliates
from those same claims.
|
Although RJR and RJR Tobacco recognize that, under certain
circumstances, they may have indemnification obligations to JTI
under the 1999 Purchase Agreement, RJR and RJR Tobacco disagree
with JTI as to whether the circumstances relating to any of
these matters give rise to any indemnification obligation by RJR
and RJR Tobacco. RJR and RJR Tobacco conveyed their position to
JTI, and the parties have agreed to resolve their differences at
a later time. In the interim, RJR and RJR Tobacco are paying
defense costs and expenses in connection with certain of the
Canadian litigation described above. RJR Tobacco expensed
$6 million during 2009, $10 million during 2008 and
$8 million during 2007, for funds to be reimbursed to JTI
for costs and expenses arising out of the Canadian litigation.
In addition, as of December 31, 2009, RJR, including its
subsidiary RJR Tobacco, had liabilities of $94 million that
were recorded in 1999 in connection with certain of the
indemnification claims asserted by JTI. For further information
on the JTI indemnification claims, see Other
Contingencies below.
On May 15, 2007, RAI was served with a subpoena issued by
the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North
Carolina. The subpoena seeks documents relating primarily to the
business of RJR-TI regarding the manufacture and sale of
Canadian brand cigarettes during the period 1990 through 1996.
The subpoena was issued at the request of Canada pursuant to a
Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty between the United States and
Canada.
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 has been stayed and largely inactive until
November 24, 2009 when, with the courts permission,
the European Community and member states filed and served a
second amended complaint. The second amended complaint adds 16
member states as plaintiffs and RAI, RJR Tobacco and 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. The court has
established a briefing schedule for defendants motion to
dismiss the second amended complaint and set May 19, 2010
as the date for oral argument on that motion.
RJR Tobacco was named a defendant in a number of lawsuits
originally filed in various federal courts in 2002 by plaintiffs
alleging descent from persons held in slavery in the United
States and seeking damages from numerous corporate defendants
for having allegedly profited from historic slavery. In October
2002, those actions were consolidated by the Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation for pre-trial proceedings in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.
On July 6, 2005, the court dismissed the entire action on a
variety of grounds. On December 13, 2006, the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed
dismissal in all respects but one. It remanded some cases for
further proceedings limited to the claims by some plaintiffs
that
present-day
representations about historic ties to slavery by some
defendants violated state consumer fraud laws. On
October 1, 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court denied the
plaintiffs petition for a writ of certiorari. The
plaintiffs in all but one of the cases either voluntarily
dismissed their claims or otherwise abandoned the litigation. On
August 11, 2008, the district court granted the
defendants motion to dismiss the remaining
plaintiffs and terminated the case. However, the motion to
dismiss excluded plaintiffs Timothy and Chester Hurdle, who
filed a third amended complaint on July 31, 2007. At the
time, no ruling was made on the motion to dismiss the Hurdle
plaintiffs and the plaintiffs named in the
118
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
third amended complaint. On April 15, 2009, the court
granted the defendants motion to dismiss the third amended
complaint without prejudice. On September 3, 2009, the
court issued a ruling to show cause as to why the case should
not be dismissed with prejudice and finality. The Hurdle
plaintiffs filed a fourth amended complaint under the Hurdle
docket number on October 2, 2009, and filed a motion for
leave to file a fourth amended complaint and a notice of filing
with the Multidistrict Litigation panel on October 5, 2009.
On May 23, 2001, and July 30, 2002, Star Scientific,
Inc., referred to as Star, filed two patent infringement
actions, which have been consolidated, against RJR Tobacco in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland
(Star I). Both patents at issue are entitled
Method of Treating Tobacco to Reduce Nitrosamine Content,
and Products Produced Thereby, and bear U.S. Patent
Nos. 6,202,649 and 6,425,401. The plaintiffs sought: the entry
of an injunction restraining RJR Tobacco from further acts of
infringement, inducement of infringement, or contributory
infringement of the patents; an award of damages, including a
reasonable royalty, to compensate for the infringement; an award
of enhanced damages on account that the defendants conduct
was willful; an award of pre-judgment interest and a further
award of post-judgment interest; an award of reasonable
attorneys fees; and an order requiring RJR Tobacco to
deliver up to the court for destruction all products
manufactured from any process which infringes upon, directly or
indirectly or otherwise, any claim of such patent. RJR Tobacco
filed counterclaims seeking a declaration that the claims of the
two Star patents are invalid, unenforceable and not infringed by
RJR Tobacco. Between January 31 and February 8, 2005, the
court held a first bench trial on RJR Tobaccos affirmative
defense and counterclaim based upon inequitable conduct.
Additionally, in response to the courts invitation, RJR
Tobacco filed two summary judgment motions on January 20,
2005.
On January 19, 2007, the court granted RJR Tobaccos
motion for summary judgment of invalidity based on
indefiniteness. The court granted in part and denied in
part RJR Tobaccos other summary judgment motion
concerning the effective filing date of the patents in suit. On
June 26, 2007, the court ruled that Stars patents are
unenforceable due to inequitable conduct by Star and its
representatives in the U.S. Patent & Trademark
Office, referred to as the PTO. On June 26, 2007, the court
also entered final judgment in favor of RJR Tobacco and against
Star, dismissing all of Stars claims with prejudice. On
June 27, 2007, Star filed a notice of appeal with the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
On August 25, 2008, the Federal Circuit issued a decision
reversing the district courts holdings and remanded the
case to the district court for further proceedings on the issues
of validity and infringement. On March 6, 2009, Star
updated its damages calculation based on an alleged reasonable
royalty to a range of $294.9 to $362.1 million. Star also
claimed treble damages of such amounts based on willful
infringement allegations.
Trial began on May 18, 2009. On June 16, 2009, the
jury returned a verdict in favor of RJR Tobacco. On July 7,
2009, Star filed a combined motion for a judgment as a matter of
law or a new trial, which RJR Tobacco opposed.
In addition, both of Stars patents under went
reexamination in the PTO, based on substantial new questions of
patentability that exist for both patents. On September 11,
2009, the PTO issued an office action rejecting the claims
currently under reexamination. On October 22, 2009,
Stars patent counsel held an interview with the examiner
in both reexaminations, which was also attended by Stars
lead trial counsel and Stars technical expert. No
agreement was reached. On November 10, 2009, Star filed
responses in the reexaminations. The examiner has not responded
to these filings.
On November 30, 2009, RJR Tobacco filed a bill of costs
seeking reimbursement of its recoverable costs as the prevailing
party, and a motion seeking reimbursement of its attorneys
fees and excess costs incurred in defending the Star I
litigation. On December 21, 2009, the district court denied
Stars combined motion for judgment as a matter of law or
new trial, entered judgment in RJR Tobaccos favor and
awarded RJR Tobacco all assessable costs. On December 21,
2009, the district court also deferred proceedings with respect
to RJR Tobaccos motion for attorneys fees and excess
costs pending final resolution of the reexamination and any
appellate proceedings. On December 22, 2009, Star filed a
notice of appeal.
After entry of final judgment, RJR Tobacco filed a renewed bill
of costs on December 30, 2009. On January 8, 2010,
after a request from Star and no objection from RJR Tobacco, the
district court deferred briefing on the
119
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
renewed bill of costs until after the resolution of appellate
proceedings and such time as the district court directs the
parties to brief RJR Tobaccos motion for attorneys
fees and excess costs.
On February 2, 2010, Stars appeal was docketed by the
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
Finally, on May 29, 2009, Star filed a follow-on lawsuit in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland
(Star II) seeking damages for alleged
infringement in 2003 and thereafter of the patents held invalid
and not infringed in Star I. On January 8, 2010, the
district court stayed Star II pending proceedings in
Star I, and Star II was administratively
closed pending further order of the district court upon the
application, by December 31, 2012, of any party based on
the resolution of Star I or other good cause.
In November, 2009, RAI and B&W were served with subpoenas
issued by the Office of the Inspector General,
U.S. Department of Defense, seeking two broad categories of
documents in connection with a civil investigation: documents
regarding the sale of U.S. manufactured cigarettes to the
Army Air Force Exchange Service and the Navy Exchange Command
either directly by the manufacturers or through distributors
during the period January 1, 1998 through December 31,
2001; and documents regarding the sale of U.S. manufactured
cigarettes by the manufacturers to civilian market customers for
resale in non-federal excise tax markets during the periods
January 1, 1998 through December 31, 2001 and
September 1, 2008 through September 1, 2009. RAI and
RJRT intend to respond appropriately to the subpoenas, including
the extent to which the subpoenas seek documents regarding the
domestic tobacco operations acquired from B&W in 2004, and
to otherwise cooperate appropriately with the investigation.
Finally, in the first quarter of 2005, Commonwealth Brands,
Inc., referred to as Commonwealth, was served with an individual
smoking and health case, Croft v. Akron Gasket in
Cuyahoga County, Ohio. Commonwealth requested indemnity from RJR
Tobacco pursuant to the Asset Purchase Agreement dated
July 24, 1996, between Commonwealth and B&W, referred
to as the 1996 Purchase Agreement. As a result of the B&W
business combination, RJR Tobacco agreed to indemnify
Commonwealth for this claim to the extent, if any, required by
the 1996 Purchase Agreement. The scope of the indemnity will be
at issue and has not been determined.
Smokeless
Tobacco Litigation
As of January 29, 2010, Conwood Company, LLC 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 the Conwood companies smokeless tobacco products. These
actions are pending before the same West Virginia court as the
654 consolidated individual smoker cases against RJR Tobacco,
B&W, as RJR Tobaccos indemnitee, or both. Pursuant to
the courts December 3, 2001, order, the smokeless
tobacco claims and defendants remain severed.
Pursuant to a second amended complaint filed in September 2006,
Conwood Company, LLC 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
the Conwood companies. The plaintiff seeks unspecified
compensatory and consequential damages in an amount greater than
$15,000. There is not a 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.
On September 4, 2009, Conwood Company, LLC, among others,
brought suit in the Circuit Court, Marion County, Oregon
(Conwood Company, LLC v. John Kroger), to enjoin the
enforcement of an Oregon statute requiring smokeless tobacco
manufacturers to either comply with certain requirements of the
Smokeless Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement, referred to as
the STMSA, or pay into an escrow account $0.40 per unit sold in
Oregon. Conwood contends the statute violates the constitutions
of Oregon and the United States. For a more detailed description
of the STMSA, see Governmental Activity
in Managements Discussion and Analysis of Financial
Condition and Results of Operations, below.
120
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
Tobacco
Buyout Legislation and Related Litigation
In 2004, legislation was passed eliminating the
U.S. governments 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 and approximately
$290 million for the liquidation of quota tobacco stock. As
a result of the tobacco buyout legislation, the MSA
Phase II obligations established in 1999 will be continued
as scheduled through the end of 2010, but will be offset against
the tobacco quota buyout obligations. RAIs operating
subsidiaries annual expense under FETRA for 2010 and
thereafter, excluding the tobacco stock liquidation assessment,
is estimated to be approximately $240 million to
$280 million. Since 2004, RAIs operating subsidiaries
have paid approximately $1.4 billion under FETRA.
RAIs operating subsidiaries will record the FETRA
assessment on a quarterly basis as cost of goods sold.
RAIs operating subsidiaries estimate that their overall
share of the buyout will approximate $2.3 billion to
$2.8 billion prior to the deduction of permitted offsets
under the MSA. In addition, future market pricing could impact
the carrying value of inventory, and adversely affect RJR
Tobaccos financial position and results of operations.
As noted above, the MSA Phase II obligations are offset
against the tobacco quota buyout obligations. Because growers in
two states, Maryland and Pennsylvania, did not participate in
the quota system, they are not eligible for payments under
FETRA. Given that the assessments paid by tobacco product
manufacturers and importers under FETRA fully offset their MSA
Phase II payment obligations, the growers in Maryland and
Pennsylvania would no longer receive payments under the MSA
Phase II program. Thus, the growers in these two states do
not receive payments under either FETRA or the MSA Phase II
program.
On December 17, 2004, Maryland and Pennsylvania filed in
the North Carolina Business Court a Motion for Clarification or
Modification of the Trust, that is, the Growers Trust that
created the MSA Phase II obligations. They later
supplemented this filing with a Statement of Claim, filed on
June 24, 2005. Maryland and Pennsylvania contend that they
are entitled to relief from the operation of the tax offset
adjustment provision of the Growers Trust and that payments
under the Growers Trust to the growers in their states should
continue. Following discovery, the parties filed cross-motions
for summary judgment on May 5, 2006. On August 17,
2007, the Business Court granted summary judgment in favor of
Maryland and Pennsylvania and denied summary judgment to the
tobacco manufacturers, including RJR Tobacco, that were the
settlors of the Growers Trust. The Business Court ruled that the
Growers Trust, as written and without judicial modification,
requires continuing payments to the Growers Trust for the
benefit of tobacco growers in Maryland and Pennsylvania. RJR
Tobacco and the other tobacco manufacturer/settlors filed their
Notice of Appeal on September 14, 2007. On
December 16, 2008, the North Carolina Court of Appeals, in
a 2-1 decision, reversed the Business Court and remanded the
case for entry of judgment in favor of RJR Tobacco and the other
tobacco manufacturers/settlors. On January 20, 2009,
Maryland and Pennsylvania filed an appeal of right based on the
dissenting opinion and also filed a petition for discretionary
review on certain additional issues. On January 30, 2009,
RJR Tobacco and the other tobacco manufacturers/settlors filed a
response to the states petition for discretionary review.
On March 19, 2009, the North Carolina Supreme Court granted
the states petition for discretionary review. Oral
argument before the North Carolina Supreme Court took place on
September 10, 2009. On November 6, 2009, the North
Carolina Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the North
Carolina Court of Appeals.
ERISA
Litigation
On May 13, 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
121
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
made in 1999 by RJR Nabisco Holdings Corp., subsequently renamed
Nabisco Group Holdings Corp., referred to as NGH, to spin off
RJR, thereby separating NGHs 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 violated ERISA by not
overriding an amendment to RJRs 401(k) plan requiring
that, prior to February 1, 2000, the stock funds of the
companies involved in the food business, NGH and Nabisco
Holdings Corp., referred to as Nabisco, be eliminated as
investment options from RJRs 401(k) plan. 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.
On July 29, 2002, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss,
which the court granted on December 10, 2003. On
December 14, 2004, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Fourth Circuit reversed the dismissal of the complaint and
remanded the case for further proceedings. On January 20,
2005, the defendants filed a second motion to dismiss on other
grounds. On March 7, 2007, the court granted the plaintiff
leave to file an amended complaint and denied all pending
motions as moot. On April 6, 2007, the defendants moved to
dismiss the amended complaint. On May 31, 2007, 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 on
June 14, 2007. On November 19, 2007, the plaintiff
filed a motion for class certification, which the court granted
on September 29, 2008. The district court ordered
mediation, which occurred on July 10, 2008, but no
resolution of the case was reached at that time. On
September 18, 2008, each of the plaintiffs and the
defendants filed motions for summary judgment, and on
January 9, 2009, the defendants filed a motion to decertify
the class. A second mediation occurred on June 23, 2009,
but again no resolution of the case was reached. On
January 11, 2010, the district court overruled the motions
for summary judgment and the motion to decertify the class. The
non-jury trial began on January 12, 2010, and closing
arguments ended on February 9, 2010. A decision is pending.
Employment
Litigation
On March 19, 2007, in Marshall v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco
Co., the plaintiff filed a collective action complaint
against RJR Tobacco in the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Missouri alleging violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act, referred to as FLSA. The allegations
include failure to keep accurate records of all hours worked by
RJR Tobaccos employees and failure to pay wages and
overtime compensation to non-exempt retail representatives. The
total number of current or former retail representatives
participating as of October 9, 2009, was 469, including
those who have opted in the Marshall case and subsequent
lawsuits filed in New York and California as described below.
Two other cases alleging violations of the FLSA and other state
law wage and hour claims were filed in February 2008:
Radcliffe v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., filed in
federal court in California, and Dinino v. R. J.
Reynolds Tobacco Co., filed in federal court in New York.
The Dinino and Radcliffe matters have been
transferred to the Missouri court and consolidated with the
already pending Marshall case due to the similarity of
issues to be resolved. The plaintiffs in the Dinino and
Radcliffe matters failed to move for class certification
on the state law claims.
On December 22, 2008, RJR Tobaccos motion for partial
summary judgment was granted. The court ruled that the
plaintiffs commutes from their homes to their first
assignment of the day, and their commutes from their last
assignments of the day to their homes, are non-compensable. On
February 5, 2009, the court denied the plaintiffs
motion for reconsideration on this issue or, in the alternative,
plaintiffs request for certification for interlocutory
appeal.
Fact discovery has been completed in this case. Two mediation
sessions were held in the first quarter of 2009, but the parties
were unable to reach a resolution. An additional mediation
session is scheduled for March 2, 2010.
On January 14, 2010, a stipulated dismissal for 73 of the
opt in plaintiffs was filed. As a result, the number of current
or former retail representatives participating in the lawsuit
will be 396.
122
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
The deadline for RJR Tobacco to file motions for summary
judgment and to decertify the lawsuit as a collective action is
March 29, 2010. If those motions do not resolve the case,
the case is scheduled for trial beginning on October 4,
2010.
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.
Regulations promulgated by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency and other governmental agencies under various
statutes have resulted in, and likely will continue to result
in, substantial expenditures for pollution control, waste
treatment, plant 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 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 RJRs or RJR Tobaccos
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, RJR Tobacco has received several claims for
indemnification from JTI. Although RJR and RJR Tobacco recognize
that, under certain circumstances, they may have indemnification
obligations to JTI under the 1999 Purchase Agreement, RJR and
RJR Tobacco disagree whether the circumstances described in such
claims give rise to any indemnification obligations by RJR and
RJR Tobacco. RJR and RJR Tobacco have conveyed their position to
JTI, and the parties have agreed to resolve their differences at
a later date. RJR, including its subsidiary RJR Tobacco, have
liabilities totaling $94 million that were recorded in 1999
in connection with these indemnification claims.
RJR Tobacco, Santa Fe, the Conwood companies and Lane 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,
Santa Fe has entered into an agreement to indemnify a
supplier from liability and related defense costs arising out of
the sale or use of Santa Fes products. The cost has
been, and is expected to be, insignificant. RJR Tobacco,
Santa Fe, the Conwood companies and Lane 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.
123
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
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
$20 million, $21 million and $20 million for
2009, 2008 and 2007, respectively.
Future minimum lease payments as of December 31, 2009, were
as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Noncancellable
|
|
|
|
Operating Leases
|
|
|
2010
|
|
$
|
17
|
|
2011
|
|
|
15
|
|
2012
|
|
|
14
|
|
2013
|
|
|
12
|
|
2014
|
|
|
8
|
|
Thereafter
|
|
|
3
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$
|
69
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Note 15
|
Shareholders
Equity
|
RAIs authorized capital stock at December 31, 2009,
consisted of 100 million shares of preferred stock, par
value $.01 per share, and 800 million shares of common
stock, par value $.0001 per share. Four million shares of the
preferred stock are designated as Series A Junior
Participating Preferred Stock, none of which is issued or
outstanding. The Series A Junior Participating Preferred
Stock will rank junior as to dividends and upon liquidation to
all other series of RAI preferred stock, unless specified
otherwise. Also, of the preferred stock, one million shares are
designated as Series B Preferred Stock, all of which are
issued and outstanding. The Series B Preferred Stock ranks
senior upon liquidation, but not with respect to dividends, to
all other series of RAI capital stock, unless specified
otherwise. As a part of the B&W business combination, RJR
is the holder of the outstanding Series B Preferred Stock.
In 2009, RAI declared $43 million in dividends to RJR with
respect to the Series B Preferred Stock.
In 2004, RAIs board of directors adopted a shareholder
rights plan, pursuant to which RAI declared a dividend of one
preferred stock purchase right on each share of RAI common stock
outstanding on July 30, 2004. The board also authorized the
issuance of rights for each share of RAI common stock issued
after the dividend record date, until the occurrence of certain
specified events. The rights will expire on July 30, 2014,
unless earlier redeemed, exercised or exchanged under the terms
of the rights plan.
The rights are not exercisable until a distribution date that is
the earlier of:
|
|
|
|
|
ten days following an announcement that a person or group, other
than BAT and its subsidiaries, except in certain circumstances,
has acquired beneficial ownership of at least 15% of RAI common
stock, and
|
|
|
|
ten business days, or such later date as may be determined by
the board, following the announcement of a tender offer which
would result in a person becoming an acquiring person.
|
If the acquiring person or tender offeror is BAT or one of its
subsidiaries, then the foregoing 15% threshold is subject to
adjustment. The rights are initially exercisable for
1/100th of a share of RAIs Series A Junior
Participating Preferred Stock at a purchase price of $130,
subject to adjustment. Each fractional share of such preferred
stock would give the holder approximately the same dividend,
voting and liquidation rights as does one share of RAI common
stock. Until the distribution date, the rights will be evidenced
by RAI common stock certificates and trade with such shares.
Upon the occurrence of certain events after the distribution
date, holders of
124
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
rights, other than the acquiring person, will be entitled to
receive upon exercise of the right, in lieu of shares of
preferred stock, RAI common stock or common stock of the
acquiring corporation having in either case a market value of
two times the exercise price of the right.
RAIs board of directors declared the following quarterly
cash dividends per share of RAI common stock in 2009, 2008 and
2007:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
First
|
|
$
|
0.85
|
|
|
$
|
0.85
|
|
|
$
|
0.75
|
|
Second
|
|
$
|
0.85
|
|
|
$
|
0.85
|
|
|
$
|
0.75
|
|
Third
|
|
$
|
0.85
|
|
|
$
|
0.85
|
|
|
$
|
0.85
|
|
Fourth
|
|
$
|
0.90
|
|
|
$
|
0.85
|
|
|
$
|
0.85
|
|
RAI repurchases shares of its common stock forfeited with
respect to the tax liability associated with certain stock
option exercises and vesting of restricted stock grants under
the LTIP. Due to RAIs incorporation in North Carolina,
which does not recognize treasury shares, the shares repurchased
are cancelled at the time of repurchase. During 2009, at a cost
of $5 million, RAI purchased 154,441 shares that were
forfeited with respect to tax liabilities associated with
restricted stock vesting under its LTIP.
The $350 million share repurchase program approved by
RAIs board of directors in 2008, authorizing RAI to
repurchase common stock in open-market or privately negotiated
transactions, from time to time, expired on April 30, 2009.
In connection with the share repurchase program, RAI and
B&W entered into an agreement, pursuant to which B&W
agreed to participate in the repurchase program on a basis
approximately proportionate with B&Ws 42% ownership
of RAI common stock. RAI repurchased and cancelled
3,817,095 shares of RAI common stock for $207 million
under this share repurchase program in 2008; no shares were
repurchased by RAI under this program in 2009.
Changes in RAI common stock outstanding were as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
Shares outstanding at beginning of year
|
|
|
291,450,762
|
|
|
|
295,007,327
|
|
|
|
295,624,741
|
|
LTIP shares granted
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
322,585
|
|
|
|
374,326
|
|
LTIP shares forfeited
|
|
|
(27,710
|
)
|
|
|
(96,797
|
)
|
|
|
(50,273
|
)
|
LTIP tax shares repurchased and cancelled
|
|
|
(154,441
|
)
|
|
|
(57,223
|
)
|
|
|
(7,956
|
)
|
Shares repurchased and cancelled
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(3,817,095
|
)
|
|
|
(984,000
|
)
|
Stock options exercised
|
|
|
122,640
|
|
|
|
72,571
|
|
|
|
44,989
|
|
Equity incentive award plan shares issued
|
|
|
32,800
|
|
|
|
19,394
|
|
|
|
5,500
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Shares outstanding at end of year
|
|
|
291,424,051
|
|
|
|
291,450,762
|
|
|
|
295,007,327
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As of December 31, 2009, RAI had two stock plans, the
Equity Incentive Award Plan for Directors of RAI, referred to as
the EIAP, and the Reynolds American Inc. 2009 Omnibus Incentive
Compensation Plan, referred to as the Omnibus Plan.
Under the EIAP, RAI currently provides (1) grants of
deferred stock units to eligible directors upon becoming a
director or, provided the director did not receive an initial
award upon
his/her
election to the board, upon appointment to the position of
Non-Executive Chairman and (2) grants of deferred stock
units to eligible directors on a quarterly and annual basis
thereafter. Directors may elect to receive shares of common
stock in lieu of their initial and annual grants of deferred
stock units. A maximum of 1,000,000 shares of common stock
may be issued under this plan, of which 588,612 shares were
available for grant as of December 31, 2009. Deferred stock
units granted under the EIAP have a value equal to, and bear
dividend equivalents at the same rate as, one share of RAI
125
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
common stock, and have no voting rights. The dividends are paid
as additional units in an amount equal to the number of shares
of RAI common stock that could be purchased with the dividends
on the date of payment. Generally, distribution of a
directors deferred stock units will be made on January 2
following his or her last year of service on the board; however,
for all grants made under the EIAP after December 31, 2007,
a director may elect to receive his or her deferred stock units
on the later of January 2 of a specified year or January 2
following his or her last year of service on the board. At the
election of a director, distribution may be made in one lump sum
or in up to ten annual installments. A director is paid in cash
for the units granted quarterly and in common stock for the
units granted initially and annually, unless the director elects
to receive cash for the initial and annual grants. Cash payments
are based on the average closing price of RAI common stock
during December of the year preceding payment. Compensation
expense related to the EIAP was $3 million expense during
2009, $1 million income during 2008, due to the decline of
the price of RAI common stock during 2008, and $4 million
expense during 2007.
In May 2009, the shareholders of RAI approved the Omnibus Plan.
Awards under the Omnibus Plan may be in the form of cash awards,
incentive or non-incentive stock options, stock appreciation
rights, restricted stock, restricted stock units, performance
shares, performance units or other awards. Subject to
adjustments as set forth in the Omnibus Plan, the number of
shares of RAI common stock that may be issued with respect to
awards under the Omnibus Plan will not exceed
19,000,000 shares in the aggregate. The Omnibus Plan
replaced the LTIP, which expired on June 14, 2009. No
awards were made under the Omnibus Plan during 2009. The
outstanding grants made under the LTIP prior to its expiration
will remain outstanding in accordance with their terms.
The LTIP provided for grants of incentive stock options, other
stock options, stock appreciation rights, restricted stock,
restricted stock units, performance units and performance shares
to key employees. Upon retirement, a holders grant under
the LTIP generally vests on a pro rata basis for the portion of
the vesting service period that has elapsed, thereby maintaining
an appropriate approximation of forfeitures related to
retirement.
Information regarding stock-based awards outstanding under the
LTIP as of December 31, 2009, was as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Number
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Number
|
|
|
Number
|
|
|
|
of
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
of
|
|
|
of
|
|
Grant
|
|
Shares
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Shares
|
|
|
Shares
|
|
Year
|
|
Granted
|
|
|
Grant Price
|
|
Type
|
|
Vesting Date
|
|
Cancelled
|
|
|
Vested
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
373,082
|
|
|
$59.50
|
|
Restricted Stock
|
|
March 6, 2010
|
|
|
61,930
|
|
|
|
66,623
|
|
2007
|
|
|
1,244
|
|
|
$64.14
|
|
Restricted Stock
|
|
March 6, 2010
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
321,991
|
|
|
$61.89
|
|
Restricted Stock
|
|
March 6, 2011
|
|
|
53,210
|
|
|
|
26,638
|
|
2008
|
|
|
594
|
|
|
$55.13
|
|
Restricted Stock
|
|
March 6, 2011
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
1,382,243
|
|
|
$33.10
|
|
Restricted Stock Units
|
|
March 2, 2012
|
|
|
102,748
|
|
|
|
|
|
The grants consist of restricted shares of RAI common stock and
restricted stock units awarded to eligible employees under the
LTIP. The grant date fair value was based on the per share
closing price of RAI common stock on the date of grant. The
actual number of shares granted is fixed. The grants are
accounted for as equity-based and compensation expense includes
the vesting period elapsed. Dividends are paid on the grants on
the same basis as dividends on shares of RAI common stock, and
are recognized as a reduction of equity. Related realized income
tax benefits are recognized as an increase to additional
paid-in-capital.
The restricted stock unit grant will be settled exclusively in
shares of RAI common stock. Upon settlement, each grantee will
receive a number of shares of RAI common stock equal to the
product of the number of vested restricted stock units and a
percentage from 0%-150% based on the average RAI annual
incentive award plan score over the three-year period ending
December 31, 2011.
Dividends paid on shares of RAI common stock will accumulate on
the restricted stock units and be paid to the grantee on the
vesting date. If RAI fails to pay its shareholders cumulative
dividends of at least $10.20 per share for the three-year
performance period ending December 31, 2011, then each
award will be reduced by an amount equal to three times the
percentage of the dividend underpayment, up to a maximum
reduction of 50%. Dividends accrued on the 2009 LTIP grant are
included in other noncurrent liabilities in the consolidated
balance sheet.
126
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
The changes in restricted RAI common stock and restricted stock
units during 2009 were as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weighted Average
|
|
|
|
Stock and
|
|
|
Grant Date
|
|
|
|
Stock Units
|
|
|
Fair Value
|
|
|
Outstanding at beginning of year
|
|
|
898,249
|
|
|
$
|
52.92
|
|
Granted
|
|
|
1,382,243
|
|
|
|
33.10
|
|
Forfeited
|
|
|
(130,458
|
)
|
|
|
39.01
|
|
Vested
|
|
|
(382,029
|
)
|
|
|
35.81
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Outstanding at end of year
|
|
|
1,768,005
|
|
|
$
|
40.73
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total compensation expense, including dividend equivalents on
phantom
stock(1),
related to stock-based compensation and the related tax benefits
recognized in selling, general and administrative expenses in
the consolidated statements of income were as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2004 phantom stock
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
3
|
|
2005 phantom stock
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
|
|
|
|
11
|
|
2006 restricted stock
|
|
|
(2
|
)
|
|
|
(1
|
)
|
|
|
10
|
|
2007 restricted stock and performance shares
|
|
|
5
|
|
|
|
7
|
|
|
|
8
|
|
2008 restricted stock
|
|
|
5
|
|
|
|
5
|
|
|
|
|
|
2009 restricted stock units
|
|
|
14
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total compensation expense
|
|
$
|
22
|
|
|
$
|
12
|
|
|
$
|
32
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total related tax benefits
|
|
$
|
8
|
|
|
$
|
4
|
|
|
$
|
12
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
The phantom stock grants consisted of performance shares payable
in cash, based on the closing price of RAI common stock on the
date of vesting. Compensation expense included the effects of
changes in the stock price, the portion of vesting period
elapsed and dividend equivalents paid concurrently with
dividends on RAI common stock. |
Payments related to stock-based compensation, including dividend
equivalents paid on phantom stock, were $15 million,
$35 million and $20 million for the years ended 2009,
2008 and 2007, respectively.
The amounts in the consolidated balance sheet as of December 31
related to the 2007 LTIP performance share grants, the 2006,
2007 and 2008 LTIP restricted stock grants and the 2009 LTIP
restricted stock units grant were as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2009
|
|
2008
|
|
Other current liabilities
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
14
|
|
Other noncurrent liabilities
|
|
|
5
|
|
|
|
|
|
Paid-in
capital
|
|
|
36
|
|
|
|
15
|
|
As of December 31, 2009, there were $44 million of
unrecognized compensation costs related to restricted stock and
restricted stock units, calculated at the grant-date price,
which are expected to be recognized over a weighted-average
period of 1.99 years.
127
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
In the EIAP and the LTIP, options were granted primarily prior
to 1999 and to a lesser extent through 2003, all of which are
fully vested. The weighted average characteristics of stock
options outstanding at December 31, 2009, all of which were
exercisable on such date, were as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Remaining
|
|
Weighted
|
|
|
|
|
Contractual
|
|
Average
|
Exercise Price Range
|
|
Shares
|
|
Life (Years)
|
|
Exercise Price
|
|
$13.05 $15.52
|
|
|
222,734
|
|
|
|
0.4
|
|
|
$
|
13.51
|
|
34.90
|
|
|
20,000
|
|
|
|
2.4
|
|
|
|
34.90
|
|
RAI has a policy of issuing new shares of common stock to
satisfy share option exercises. Of the options outstanding as of
December 31, 2009, 20,000 were issued under the EIAP, and
under the LTIP, 222,734 were issued prior to 1999. The changes
in RAIs stock options during 2009, 2008 and 2007 were as
follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weighted
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weighted
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weighted
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Exercise
|
|
|
|
|
|
Exercise
|
|
|
|
|
|
Exercise
|
|
|
|
Options
|
|
|
Price
|
|
|
Options
|
|
|
Price
|
|
|
Options
|
|
|
Price
|
|
|
Outstanding at beginning of year
|
|
|
388,174
|
|
|
$
|
14.75
|
|
|
|
466,347
|
|
|
$
|
14.59
|
|
|
|
513,924
|
|
|
$
|
14.59
|
|
Expired
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(5,602
|
)
|
|
|
16.21
|
|
|
|
(2,588
|
)
|
|
|
24.16
|
|
Exercised
|
|
|
(145,440
|
)
|
|
|
13.89
|
|
|
|
(72,571
|
)
|
|
|
13.56
|
|
|
|
(44,989
|
)
|
|
|
14.13
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Outstanding at end of year
|
|
|
242,734
|
|
|
|
15.27
|
|
|
|
388,174
|
|
|
|
14.75
|
|
|
|
466,347
|
|
|
|
14.59
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Exercisable at end of year
|
|
|
242,734
|
|
|
|
15.27
|
|
|
|
388,174
|
|
|
|
14.75
|
|
|
|
466,347
|
|
|
|
14.59
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The intrinsic value of options exercised was $4 million,
$2 million and $2 million for the years ended
December 31, 2009, 2008 and 2007, respectively. The
aggregate intrinsic value of fully vested outstanding and
exercisable options at December 31, 2009, was
$9 million. Cash proceeds related to stock options
exercised and excess tax benefits related to stock-based
compensation were as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2009
|
|
2008
|
|
2007
|
|
Proceeds from exercise of stock options
|
|
$
|
2
|
|
|
$
|
1
|
|
|
$
|
1
|
|
Excess tax benefits from stock-based compensation
|
|
|
2
|
|
|
|
2
|
|
|
|
2
|
|
Equity compensation plan information is as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Number of Securities
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Remaining Available for
|
|
|
|
Number of Securities
|
|
|
Weighted Average
|
|
|
Future Issuance under
|
|
|
|
to be Issued Upon
|
|
|
Exercise Price of
|
|
|
Equity Compensation
|
|
|
|
Exercise of
|
|
|
Outstanding
|
|
|
Plans (Excluding
|
|
|
|
Outstanding Options,
|
|
|
Options, Warrants
|
|
|
Securities Reflected in
|
|
Plan Category
|
|
Warrants and Rights
|
|
|
and Rights
|
|
|
Column (a))
|
|
|
|
(a)
|
|
|
(b)
|
|
|
(c)
|
|
|
Equity Compensation Plans Approved by Security Holders
|
|
|
2,141,977
|
|
|
$
|
13.51
|
(2)
|
|
|
19,000,000
|
|
Equity Compensation Plans Not Approved by Security
Holders(1)
|
|
|
20,000
|
|
|
|
34.90
|
|
|
|
588,612
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
2,161,977
|
|
|
|
15.27
|
(2)
|
|
|
19,588,612
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
The EIAP is the only equity compensation plan not approved by
RAIs or RJRs public shareholders. The EIAP was
approved by RJRs sole shareholder, NGH, prior to
RJRs spin-off on June 15, 1999. |
128
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
|
|
|
(2) |
|
The weighted average exercise price is related to 222,734
outstanding options and excludes 1,919,243 restricted stock
units granted at $33.10. These restricted stock units represent
the maximum number, 150%, of shares to be awarded under the
best-case targets that may not be achieved, and accordingly, may
overstate expected dilution. |
Note 17
Retirement Benefits
RAI and certain of its subsidiaries sponsor a number of
non-contributory defined benefit pension plans covering most of
their employees, and also provide certain health and life
insurance benefits for most of their retired employees and their
dependents. These benefits are generally no longer provided to
employees hired on or after January 1, 2004.
The changes in benefit obligations and plan assets, as well as
the funded status of these plans at December 31, were as
follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Postretirement
|
|
|
|
Pension Benefits
|
|
|
Benefits
|
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
Change in benefit obligation:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obligation at beginning of year
|
|
$
|
5,106
|
|
|
$
|
5,088
|
|
|
$
|
1,445
|
|
|
$
|
1,485
|
|
Service cost
|
|
|
31
|
|
|
|
36
|
|
|
|
4
|
|
|
|
5
|
|
Interest cost
|
|
|
319
|
|
|
|
318
|
|
|
|
80
|
|
|
|
90
|
|
Actuarial (gain) loss
|
|
|
218
|
|
|
|
66
|
|
|
|
13
|
|
|
|
(25
|
)
|
Plan amendments
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
26
|
|
|
|
(99
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
Benefits paid
|
|
|
(411
|
)
|
|
|
(424
|
)
|
|
|
(92
|
)
|
|
|
(110
|
)
|
Settlements
|
|
|
(1
|
)
|
|
|
(11
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Curtailment/special termination benefits
|
|
|
8
|
|
|
|
7
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obligation at end of year
|
|
$
|
5,270
|
|
|
$
|
5,106
|
|
|
$
|
1,351
|
|
|
$
|
1,445
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Change in plan assets:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fair value of plan assets at beginning of year
|
|
$
|
3,376
|
|
|
$
|
5,421
|
|
|
$
|
254
|
|
|
$
|
364
|
|
Actual return on plan assets
|
|
|
795
|
|
|
|
(1,631
|
)
|
|
|
43
|
|
|
|
(78
|
)
|
Employer contributions
|
|
|
295
|
|
|
|
21
|
|
|
|
65
|
|
|
|
78
|
|
Benefits paid
|
|
|
(411
|
)
|
|
|
(424
|
)
|
|
|
(92
|
)
|
|
|
(110
|
)
|
Settlements
|
|
|
(1
|
)
|
|
|
(11
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fair value of plan assets at end of year
|
|
$
|
4,054
|
|
|
$
|
3,376
|
|
|
$
|
270
|
|
|
$
|
254
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Funded status
|
|
$
|
(1,216
|
)
|
|
$
|
(1,730
|
)
|
|
$
|
(1,081
|
)
|
|
$
|
(1,191
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Amounts recognized in the consolidated balance sheets consist of:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accrued benefit other current liability
|
|
|
(9
|
)
|
|
|
(6
|
)
|
|
|
(70
|
)
|
|
|
(79
|
)
|
Accrued benefit long-term retirement benefits
|
|
|
(1,207
|
)
|
|
|
(1,724
|
)
|
|
|
(1,011
|
)
|
|
|
(1,112
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net amount recognized
|
|
|
(1,216
|
)
|
|
|
(1,730
|
)
|
|
|
(1,081
|
)
|
|
|
(1,191
|
)
|
Accumulated other comprehensive loss
|
|
|
2,105
|
|
|
|
2,448
|
|
|
|
171
|
|
|
|
271
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net amounts recognized in the consolidated balance sheets
|
|
$
|
889
|
|
|
$
|
718
|
|
|
$
|
(910
|
)
|
|
$
|
(920
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Due to the adverse changes in the financial markets, RAIs
pension assets were negatively impacted in 2008, as the overall
rate of return on the investments for the pension assets was
negative approximately 30.1%. During 2009, this rate of return
improved to 24.8%.
129
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
Amounts included in accumulated other comprehensive loss were as
follows as of December 31:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
|
Pension
|
|
|
Postretirement
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pension
|
|
|
Postretirement
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Benefits
|
|
|
Benefits
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
Benefits
|
|
|
Benefits
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
Prior service cost (credit)
|
|
$
|
34
|
|
|
$
|
(92
|
)
|
|
$
|
(58
|
)
|
|
$
|
38
|
|
|
$
|
(17
|
)
|
|
$
|
21
|
|
Net actuarial loss
|
|
|
2,071
|
|
|
|
263
|
|
|
|
2,334
|
|
|
|
2,410
|
|
|
|
288
|
|
|
|
2,698
|
|
Deferred income taxes
|
|
|
(833
|
)
|
|
|
(67
|
)
|
|
|
(900
|
)
|
|
|
(969
|
)
|
|
|
(107
|
)
|
|
|
(1,076
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accumulated other comprehensive loss
|
|
$
|
1,272
|
|
|
$
|
104
|
|
|
$
|
1,376
|
|
|
$
|
1,479
|
|
|
$
|
164
|
|
|
$
|
1,643
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Changes in accumulated other comprehensive loss were as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
|
Pension
|
|
|
Postretirement
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pension
|
|
|
Postretirement
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Benefits
|
|
|
Benefits
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
Benefits
|
|
|
Benefits
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
Prior service cost
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
(99
|
)
|
|
$
|
(99
|
)
|
|
$
|
26
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
26
|
|
Net actuarial (gain) loss
|
|
|
(240
|
)
|
|
|
(10
|
)
|
|
|
(250
|
)
|
|
|
2,143
|
|
|
|
80
|
|
|
|
2,223
|
|
Amortization of prior service cost (credit)
|
|
|
(4
|
)
|
|
|
24
|
|
|
|
20
|
|
|
|
(5
|
)
|
|
|
11
|
|
|
|
6
|
|
Amortization of net loss
|
|
|
(99
|
)
|
|
|
(15
|
)
|
|
|
(114
|
)
|
|
|
(18
|
)
|
|
|
(16
|
)
|
|
|
(34
|
)
|
Deferred income tax (expense) benefit
|
|
|
136
|
|
|
|
40
|
|
|
|
176
|
|
|
|
(853
|
)
|
|
|
(31
|
)
|
|
|
(884
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Change in accumulated other comprehensive loss
|
|
$
|
(207
|
)
|
|
$
|
(60
|
)
|
|
$
|
(267
|
)
|
|
$
|
1,293
|
|
|
$
|
44
|
|
|
$
|
1,337
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The $99 million reduction in postretirement was the result
of RAI switching to a self-insured health plan.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pension Benefits
|
|
|
Postretirement
|
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
Weighted-average assumptions used to determine benefit
obligations at December 31:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Discount rate
|
|
|
6.30
|
%
|
|
|
6.40
|
%
|
|
|
6.20
|
%
|
|
|
6.39
|
%
|
Rate of compensation increase
|
|
|
5.00
|
%
|
|
|
4.97
|
%
|
|
|
5.00
|
%
|
|
|
5.00
|
%
|
The measurement date used for all plans was December 31.
Pension plans experiencing accumulated benefit obligations,
which represent benefits earned to date, in excess of plan
assets are summarized below:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
Projected benefit obligation
|
|
$
|
5,270
|
|
|
$
|
5,106
|
|
Accumulated benefit obligation
|
|
|
5,158
|
|
|
|
4,970
|
|
Plan assets
|
|
|
4,054
|
|
|
|
3,376
|
|
130
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
The components of the total benefit cost (income) and
assumptions are set forth below:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pension Benefits
|
|
|
Postretirement Benefits
|
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
Components of total benefit cost (income):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Service cost
|
|
$
|
31
|
|
|
$
|
36
|
|
|
$
|
40
|
|
|
$
|
4
|
|
|
$
|
5
|
|
|
$
|
5
|
|
Interest cost
|
|
|
319
|
|
|
|
318
|
|
|
|
314
|
|
|
|
80
|
|
|
|
90
|
|
|
|
91
|
|
Expected return on plan assets
|
|
|
(337
|
)
|
|
|
(450
|
)
|
|
|
(436
|
)
|
|
|
(20
|
)
|
|
|
(27
|
)
|
|
|
(27
|
)
|
Amortization of prior service cost (credit)
|
|
|
4
|
|
|
|
5
|
|
|
|
2
|
|
|
|
(24
|
)
|
|
|
(11
|
)
|
|
|
(12
|
)
|
Amortization of net loss
|
|
|
99
|
|
|
|
18
|
|
|
|
42
|
|
|
|
15
|
|
|
|
16
|
|
|
|
23
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net periodic benefit cost (income)
|
|
|
116
|
|
|
|
(73
|
)
|
|
|
(38
|
)
|
|
|
55
|
|
|
|
73
|
|
|
|
80
|
|
Curtailment/special termination benefits
|
|
|
8
|
|
|
|
7
|
|
|
|
1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Settlements
|
|
|
1
|
|
|
|
4
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total benefit cost (income)
|
|
$
|
125
|
|
|
$
|
(62
|
)
|
|
$
|
(37
|
)
|
|
$
|
55
|
|
|
$
|
73
|
|
|
$
|
80
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The estimated net loss and prior service cost for pension plans
that are expected to be amortized from accumulated other
comprehensive loss into net periodic benefit cost during 2010
are $121 million and $4 million, respectively. The
estimated net loss and prior service cost for the postretirement
plans that are expected to be amortized from accumulated other
comprehensive loss into net postretirement health care costs
during 2010 are $21 million and ($24) million,
respectively.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pension Benefits
|
|
Postretirement Benefits
|
|
|
2009
|
|
2008
|
|
2007
|
|
2009
|
|
2008
|
|
2007
|
|
Weighted-average assumptions used to determine net periodic
benefit cost for years ended December 31:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Discount rate
|
|
6.40%
|
|
6.50%
|
|
6.10%
|
|
6.39%
|
|
6.50%
|
|
6.10%
|
Expected long-term return on plan assets
|
|
8.24%
|
|
8.74%
|
|
8.74%
|
|
6.80%
|
|
8.00%
|
|
8.00%
|
Rate of compensation increase
|
|
5.00%
|
|
4.97%
|
|
4.97%
|
|
5.00%
|
|
5.00%
|
|
5.00%
|
RAI generally uses a hypothetical bond matching analysis to
determine the discount rate. The discount rate modeling process
involves selecting a portfolio of high quality corporate bonds
whose cash flows, via coupons and maturities, match the
projected cash flows of the obligations. For some years, there
were no bonds maturing. In these instances, it was assumed that
there would be bonds available with the same yield
characteristics as the available bond maturing in the
immediately preceding year.
RAI incurred special termination benefits due to changes in the
organizational structure of RJR Tobacco and settlements due to
early retirements under non-qualified pension plans. See
note 4 for additional information regarding the
restructuring.
The overall expected long-term rate of return on assets
assumptions for pension and postretirement assets are based on:
(1) the target asset allocation for plan assets,
(2) long-term capital markets forecasts for asset classes
employed, and (3) excess return expectations of active
management to the extent asset classes are actively managed.
RAI uses a five-year period wherein unrealized equity gains and
losses are reflected in the expense calculation at 20% per year,
beginning the year after the gains or losses occur. In 2009, the
combination of an increase in the fair value of plan assets and
lower prior service costs, offset by a lower discount rate,
resulted in a favorable change in funded status through a charge
of $443 million, $267 million after tax, to
accumulated other comprehensive loss. In 2008, the combination
of a significant decrease in the fair value of plan assets and
benefits paid resulted in an unfavorable change in funded status
through a charge of $2,221 million, $1,337 million
after tax, to accumulated other comprehensive loss.
The majority of plan assets are invested using active investment
strategies. Active strategies employ multiple investment
management firms. Managers within each asset class cover a range
of investment styles and approaches
131
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
and are combined in a way that controls for capitalization,
style biases, and interest rate exposures, while focusing
primarily on security selection as a means to add value. Risk is
controlled through diversification among asset classes,
managers, styles and securities. Risk is further controlled both
at the manager and asset class level by assigning excess return
and tracking error targets against related benchmark indices.
Investment manager performance is evaluated against these
targets.
Allowable investment types include domestic equity,
international equity, global equity, fixed income, real estate,
private equity, hedge funds and global tactical asset
allocation. The range of allowable investment types utilized for
pension assets provides enhanced returns and more widely
diversifies the plan. Domestic equities are composed of common
stocks of large, medium and small companies. International
equities include equity securities issued by companies domiciled
outside the United States and in depository receipts, which
represent ownership of securities of
non-U.S. companies.
Global equities include a combination of both U.S. and
non-U.S. securities.
Fixed income includes fixed income securities issued or
guaranteed by the U.S. government, and to a lesser extent
by
non-U.S. governments,
mortgage backed securities, corporate debt obligations and
dollar-denominated obligations issued in the United States by
non-U.S. banks
and corporations. Up to 25% of the fixed income assets can be in
debt securities that are below investment grade. Real estate
consists of publicly traded real estate investment trust
securities and private real estate investments. Private equity
consists of the unregistered securities of private and public
companies. Hedge fund investments are diversified portfolios
utilizing multiple strategies that invest primarily in public
securities, including equities and fixed income. Global tactical
asset allocation strategies evaluate relative value within and
across asset categories and overweight the attractive
markets/assets while simultaneously underweighting less
attractive markets/assets.
For pension assets, futures contracts are used for portfolio
rebalancing and to approach fully invested portfolio positions.
Otherwise, a small number of investment managers employ limited
use of derivatives, including futures contracts, options on
futures and interest rate swaps in place of direct investment in
securities to gain efficient exposure to markets.
RAIs pension and postretirement plans weighted-average
asset allocations at December 31, 2009 and 2008, by asset
category were as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pension Plans
|
|
|
|
2009
Target(1)
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
Asset Category:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Domestic equities
|
|
|
30
|
%
|
|
|
30
|
%
|
|
|
28
|
%
|
International equities
|
|
|
14
|
%
|
|
|
13
|
%
|
|
|
13
|
%
|
Global equities
|
|
|
6
|
%
|
|
|
8
|
%
|
|
|
7
|
%
|
Fixed income
|
|
|
34
|
%
|
|
|
32
|
%
|
|
|
31
|
%
|
High yield fixed income
|
|
|
2
|
%
|
|
|
3
|
%
|
|
|
2
|
%
|
Hedge funds
|
|
|
8
|
%
|
|
|
8
|
%
|
|
|
12
|
%
|
Private equity
|
|
|
2
|
%
|
|
|
1
|
%
|
|
|
2
|
%
|
Real estate
|
|
|
2
|
%
|
|
|
3
|
%
|
|
|
3
|
%
|
Global tactical asset allocation
|
|
|
2
|
%
|
|
|
2
|
%
|
|
|
2
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
100
|
%
|
|
|
100
|
%
|
|
|
100
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Allows for a rebalancing range of up to 5 percentage points
around target asset allocations. |
132
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Postretirement Plans
|
|
|
|
2009
Target(1)
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
Asset Category:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Domestic equities
|
|
|
43
|
%
|
|
|
43
|
%
|
|
|
41
|
%
|
International equities
|
|
|
17
|
%
|
|
|
17
|
%
|
|
|
15
|
%
|
Fixed income
|
|
|
38
|
%
|
|
|
35
|
%
|
|
|
42
|
%
|
Hedge funds
|
|
|
1
|
%
|
|
|
1
|
%
|
|
|
1
|
%
|
Real estate and other
|
|
|
1
|
%
|
|
|
4
|
%
|
|
|
1
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
100
|
%
|
|
|
100
|
%
|
|
|
100
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Allows for a rebalancing range of up to 5 percentage points
around target asset allocations. |
RAIs pension and postretirement plans assets carried at
fair value on a recurring basis as of December 31, 2009,
were as
follows(1):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pension Plans
|
|
Level 1
|
|
|
Level 2
|
|
|
Level 3
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
Asset Category:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Domestic equities
|
|
$
|
750
|
|
|
$
|
348
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
1,098
|
|
International equities
|
|
|
123
|
|
|
|
419
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
542
|
|
Global equities
|
|
|
310
|
|
|
|
1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
311
|
|
Fixed income
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,048
|
|
|
|
96
|
|
|
|
1,144
|
|
High yield fixed income
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
121
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
121
|
|
Hedge funds
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4
|
|
|
|
290
|
|
|
|
294
|
|
Private equity
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
7
|
|
|
|
43
|
|
|
|
50
|
|
Real estate
|
|
|
92
|
|
|
|
6
|
|
|
|
31
|
|
|
|
129
|
|
Global tactical asset allocation
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
90
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
90
|
|
Cash and other
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
240
|
|
|
|
3
|
|
|
|
243
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$
|
1,275
|
|
|
$
|
2,284
|
|
|
$
|
463
|
|
|
$
|
4,022
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Postretirement Plans
|
|
Level 1
|
|
|
Level 2
|
|
|
Level 3
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
Asset Category:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Domestic equities
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
115
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
115
|
|
International equities
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
46
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
46
|
|
Fixed income
|
|
|
5
|
|
|
|
90
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
95
|
|
Hedge funds
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
|
|
|
|
1
|
|
Real estate and other
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
12
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
12
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$
|
5
|
|
|
$
|
263
|
|
|
$
|
1
|
|
|
$
|
269
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
See note 2 for additional information on the fair value
hierarchy. |
133
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
Transfers of pension and postretirement plan assets in and out
of Level 3 during 2009, by asset category were as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Purchases, Sales,
|
|
|
Realized
|
|
|
Unrealized
|
|
|
Transferred
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance as of
|
|
|
Issuances and
|
|
|
Gains
|
|
|
Gains
|
|
|
From Other
|
|
|
Balance as of
|
|
|
|
January 1, 2009
|
|
|
Settlements (net)
|
|
|
(Losses)
|
|
|
(Losses)
|
|
|
Levels(1)
|
|
|
December 31, 2009
|
|
|
Global equities
|
|
$
|
1
|
|
|
$
|
(2
|
)
|
|
$
|
(1
|
)
|
|
$
|
2
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
Fixed income
|
|
|
80
|
|
|
|
(72
|
)
|
|
|
8
|
|
|
|
12
|
|
|
|
68
|
|
|
|
96
|
|
Hedge funds
|
|
|
354
|
|
|
|
(99
|
)
|
|
|
34
|
|
|
|
2
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
291
|
|
Private equity
|
|
|
48
|
|
|
|
1
|
|
|
|
1
|
|
|
|
(7
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
43
|
|
Real estate
|
|
|
47
|
|
|
|
12
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(28
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
31
|
|
Other
|
|
|
3
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$
|
533
|
|
|
$
|
(160
|
)
|
|
$
|
42
|
|
|
$
|
(19
|
)
|
|
$
|
68
|
|
|
$
|
464
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Transfers in and out of Level 3 occur using the fair value
at the beginning of the period. |
The fair value of pension and postretirement assets classified
as fixed income and certain of those classified as real estate
and hedge funds, classified as Level 3, was determined
primarily using an income approach. This approach utilized the
net asset value of the underlying investment fund adjusted for
restrictions or illiquidity of the disposition of the interest,
the holders requirements to understand and accept the
valuations provided by the funds cash flows, and the
rights and obligations of the ownership interest of the fund.
The fair value of pension and postretirement assets classified
as private equity and certain of those classified as real estate
and hedge funds, classified as Level 3, was determined
primarily using an income approach. The fair value was
determined by qualified appraisers utilizing observable and
unobservable data, including comparable transactions, the fair
value of the underlying assets, discount rates, restrictions on
disposing interests in the investments cash flows and
other entity specific risk factors.
The fair value of pension and postretirement assets classified
as other, classified as Level 3, was determined primarily
using an income approach that utilized cash flow models and
benchmarking strategies. This approach utilized observable
inputs, including market-based interest rate curves, corporate
credit spreads and corporate ratings. Additionally, unobservable
factors incorporated into these models included default
probability assumptions, potential recovery and discount rates.
Additional information relating to RAIs significant
postretirement plans is as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2009
|
|
2008
|
|
Weighted-average health-care cost trend rate assumed for the
following year
|
|
|
8.87
|
%
|
|
|
9.49
|
%
|
Rate to which the cost trend rate is assumed to decline (the
ultimate trend rate)
|
|
|
5.00
|
%
|
|
|
5.00
|
%
|
Year that the rate reaches the ultimate trend rate
|
|
|
2017
|
|
|
|
2018
|
|
Assumed health-care cost trend rates have a significant effect
on the amounts reported for the health-care plans. A
one-percentage-point change in assumed health-care cost trend
rates would have had the following effects:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1-Percentage
|
|
1-Percentage
|
|
|
Point
|
|
Point
|
|
|
Increase
|
|
Decrease
|
|
Effect on total of service and interest cost components
|
|
$
|
5
|
|
|
$
|
(4
|
)
|
Effect on benefit obligation
|
|
|
69
|
|
|
|
(60
|
)
|
During 2010, RAI expects to contribute approximately
$309 million to its pension plans, of which
$300 million is allocated to the 2009 plan year, and
expects payments related to its postretirement plans to be
$70 million.
134
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
Estimated future benefits payments:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Postretirement Benefits
|
|
|
|
|
Gross Projected
|
|
Expected
|
|
Net Projected
|
|
|
|
|
Benefit Payments
|
|
Medicare
|
|
Benefit Payments
|
|
|
Pension
|
|
Before Medicare
|
|
Part D
|
|
After Medicare
|
Year
|
|
Benefits
|
|
Part D Subsidies
|
|
Subsidies
|
|
Part D Subsidies
|
|
2010
|
|
$
|
415
|
|
|
$
|
108
|
|
|
$
|
4
|
|
|
$
|
104
|
|
2011
|
|
|
401
|
|
|
|
113
|
|
|
|
4
|
|
|
|
109
|
|
2012
|
|
|
387
|
|
|
|
115
|
|
|
|
4
|
|
|
|
111
|
|
2013
|
|
|
383
|
|
|
|
116
|
|
|
|
5
|
|
|
|
111
|
|
2014
|
|
|
380
|
|
|
|
116
|
|
|
|
5
|
|
|
|
111
|
|
2015-2019
|
|
|
1,961
|
|
|
|
557
|
|
|
|
29
|
|
|
|
528
|
|
RAI sponsors qualified defined contribution
plans. The expense related to these plans was
$37 million, $39 million and $41 million, in
2009, 2008 and 2007, respectively. Included in the plans is a
non-leveraged employee stock ownership plan, which holds shares
of the Reynolds Stock Fund. Participants can elect to contribute
to the fund. Dividends paid on shares are reflected as a
reduction of equity. All shares are considered outstanding for
earnings per share computations.
Note 18
Segment Information
RAIs reportable operating segments are RJR Tobacco and
Conwood. The RJR Tobacco segment consists of the primary
operations of R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company. The Conwood
segment consists of Conwood Holdings, Inc., the primary
operations of the Conwood companies and Lane. Two of RAIs
wholly owned subsidiaries, Santa Fe and Niconovum AB, among
others, are included in All Other. The segments were identified
based on how RAIs chief operating decision maker allocates
resources and assesses performance. RAIs wholly owned
operating subsidiaries have entered into intercompany agreements
for products or services with other RAI operating subsidiaries.
As a result, certain activities of an operating subsidiary may
be included in a different segment of RAI.
RAIs largest reportable operating segment, RJR Tobacco, is
the second largest cigarette manufacturer in the United States.
RJR Tobaccos largest-selling cigarette brands, CAMEL, PALL
MALL, WINSTON, KOOL and DORAL, were five of the ten best-selling
brands of cigarettes in the United States as of
December 31, 2009. Those brands, and its other brands,
including SALEM, MISTY and CAPRI, are manufactured in a variety
of styles and marketed in the United States. RJR Tobacco also
manages contract manufacturing of cigarette and tobacco products
through arrangements with BAT affiliates.
RAIs other reportable operating segment, Conwood, is the
second largest smokeless tobacco products manufacturer in the
United States. Conwoods primary brands include its
largest-selling moist snuff brands, GRIZZLY, the best-selling
moist snuff brand in the United States as of December 31,
2009, and KODIAK. Conwood also distributes a variety of tobacco
products including WINCHESTER and CAPTAIN BLACK little cigars,
and BUGLER roll-your-own tobacco.
Santa Fe manufactures and markets cigarettes and other
tobacco products under the NATURAL AMERICAN SPIRIT brand, as
well as manages RJR Tobaccos super premium cigarette
brands, DUNHILL and STATE EXPRESS 555, which are licensed from
BAT.
In January 2009, the activities of GPI were transitioned to
other operating subsidiaries of RAI. The management and export
of tobacco products to certain U.S. territories,
U.S. duty-free shops and U.S. overseas military bases
was transferred to RJR Tobacco, and sales of NATURAL AMERICAN
SPIRIT in Europe and Japan were transferred to other indirect
subsidiaries of RAI.
RAIs operating subsidiaries sales to foreign
countries, primarily to related parties, for the years ended
December 31, 2009, 2008 and 2007 were $547 million,
$611 million and $616 million, respectively.
Intersegment revenues and
135
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
items below the operating income line of the consolidated
statements of income are not presented by segment, since they
are excluded from the measure of segment profitability reviewed
by RAIs chief operating decision maker.
Segment Data:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
Net sales:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
RJR Tobacco
|
|
$
|
7,334
|
|
|
$
|
7,755
|
|
|
$
|
8,022
|
|
Conwood
|
|
|
673
|
|
|
|
723
|
|
|
|
670
|
|
All Other
|
|
|
412
|
|
|
|
367
|
|
|
|
331
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Consolidated net sales
|
|
$
|
8,419
|
|
|
$
|
8,845
|
|
|
$
|
9,023
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating income:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
RJR Tobacco
|
|
$
|
1,487
|
|
|
$
|
1,805
|
|
|
$
|
1,988
|
|
Conwood
|
|
|
276
|
|
|
|
232
|
|
|
|
312
|
|
All Other
|
|
|
112
|
|
|
|
104
|
|
|
|
94
|
|
Corporate expense
|
|
|
(100
|
)
|
|
|
(89
|
)
|
|
|
(106
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Consolidated operating income
|
|
$
|
1,775
|
|
|
$
|
2,052
|
|
|
$
|
2,288
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Assets:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
RJR Tobacco
|
|
$
|
14,865
|
|
|
$
|
15,338
|
|
|
$
|
15,956
|
|
Conwood
|
|
|
4,419
|
|
|
|
4,386
|
|
|
|
4,559
|
|
All Other
|
|
|
1,536
|
|
|
|
1,384
|
|
|
|
1,104
|
|
Corporate
|
|
|
15,491
|
|
|
|
15,647
|
|
|
|
16,336
|
|
Elimination adjustments
|
|
|
(18,302
|
)
|
|
|
(18,601
|
)
|
|
|
(19,326
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Consolidated assets
|
|
$
|
18,009
|
|
|
$
|
18,154
|
|
|
$
|
18,629
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash capital expenditures:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
RJR Tobacco
|
|
$
|
55
|
|
|
$
|
62
|
|
|
$
|
93
|
|
Conwood
|
|
|
75
|
|
|
|
34
|
|
|
|
23
|
|
All Other
|
|
|
11
|
|
|
|
17
|
|
|
|
26
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Consolidated capital expenditures
|
|
$
|
141
|
|
|
$
|
113
|
|
|
$
|
142
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Depreciation and amortization expense:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
RJR Tobacco
|
|
$
|
123
|
|
|
$
|
124
|
|
|
$
|
125
|
|
Conwood
|
|
|
13
|
|
|
|
11
|
|
|
|
11
|
|
All Other
|
|
|
8
|
|
|
|
7
|
|
|
|
7
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Consolidated depreciation and amortization expense
|
|
$
|
144
|
|
|
$
|
142
|
|
|
$
|
143
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reconciliation to income from continuing operations before
income taxes and extraordinary item:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating
income(1)(2)
|
|
$
|
1,775
|
|
|
$
|
2,052
|
|
|
$
|
2,288
|
|
Interest and debt expense
|
|
|
251
|
|
|
|
275
|
|
|
|
338
|
|
Interest income
|
|
|
(19
|
)
|
|
|
(60
|
)
|
|
|
(134
|
)
|
Gain on termination of joint venture
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(328
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
Other expense, net
|
|
|
9
|
|
|
|
37
|
|
|
|
11
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income from continuing operations before income taxes and
extraordinary item
|
|
$
|
1,534
|
|
|
$
|
2,128
|
|
|
$
|
2,073
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) For information related to trademark impairments, see
note 3.
(2) For information related to restructuring charges, see
note 4.
136
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
Sales made to McLane Company, Inc., a distributor, comprised
27%, 29% and 28% of RAIs revenue in 2009, 2008 and 2007,
respectively. McLane Company is a customer in all segments. No
other customer accounted for 10% or more of RAIs revenue
during those periods.
Note 19
Related Party Transactions
RAI and its operating subsidiaries engage in transactions with
affiliates of BAT. The following is a summary of balances and
transactions with such BAT affiliates as of and for the years
ended December 31:
Balances:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2009
|
|
2008
|
|
Accounts receivable
|
|
$
|
96
|
|
|
$
|
91
|
|
Accounts payable
|
|
|
(3
|
)
|
|
|
(3
|
)
|
Deferred revenue
|
|
|
(57
|
)
|
|
|
(50
|
)
|
Significant transactions:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2009
|
|
2008
|
|
2007
|
|
Net sales
|
|
$
|
404
|
|
|
$
|
468
|
|
|
$
|
507
|
|
Research and development services billings
|
|
|
2
|
|
|
|
3
|
|
|
|
3
|
|
Purchases
|
|
|
16
|
|
|
|
12
|
|
|
|
18
|
|
RAI common stock purchases from B&W
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
75
|
|
|
|
|
|
RAIs operating subsidiaries sell contract-manufactured
cigarettes, processed strip leaf, pipe tobacco and little cigars
to BAT affiliates. In 2009, as in the prior years, pricing for
contract-manufactured cigarettes was generally calculated based
on 2004 prices, using B&Ws forecasted 2004
manufacturing costs plus 10%, increased by a multiple equal to
the increase in the Producer Price Index for subsequent years,
reported by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Net sales,
primarily of cigarettes, to BAT affiliates represented
approximately 5.0% of RAIs total net sales in each of 2009
and 2008 and 6.0% of RAIs total net sales in 2007.
RJR Tobacco recorded deferred sales revenue relating to leaf
sold to BAT affiliates that had not been delivered as of
December 31, given that RJR Tobacco had a legal right to
bill the BAT affiliates. Leaf sales revenue to BAT affiliates
will be recognized when the product is shipped to the customer.
RJR Tobacco performs certain research and development for BAT
affiliates pursuant to a joint technology sharing agreement
entered into as a part of the B&W business combination.
These services were accrued and billed to BAT affiliates and
were recorded in RJR Tobaccos selling, general and
administrative expenses, net of associated costs.
RAIs operating subsidiaries also purchase unprocessed leaf
at market prices, and imports cigarettes at prices not to exceed
manufacturing costs plus 10%, from BAT affiliates.
In connection with RAIs share repurchase program, which
expired on April 30, 2009, RAI and B&W entered into an
agreement on April 29, 2008, pursuant to which B&W
agreed to participate in the repurchase program on a basis
approximately proportionate with B&Ws 42% ownership
of RAI common stock. Under this agreement, RAI repurchased
1,387,095 shares of RAI common stock from B&W during
2008. No shares of RAI common stock were repurchased by RAI
during 2009 under this program.
Note 20
RAI Guaranteed, Unsecured Notes Condensed
Consolidating Financial Statements
The following condensed consolidating financial statements
relate to the guaranties of RAIs $4.3 billion
unsecured notes. See note 12 for additional information
relating to these notes. RAIs direct, wholly owned
subsidiaries and certain of its indirectly owned subsidiaries
have fully and unconditionally and jointly and severally,
guaranteed these notes. The following condensed consolidating
financial statements include: the accounts and activities of
RAI, the parent issuer; RJR, RJR Tobacco, the Conwood companies,
Conwood Holdings, Inc., Santa Fe, Lane, GPI and certain of
RJR Tobaccos other subsidiaries, the Guarantors; other
indirect subsidiaries of RAI that are not Guarantors; and
elimination adjustments.
137
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
Condensed
Consolidating Statements of Income
(Dollars in Millions)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Parent
|
|
|
|
|
|
Non-
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Issuer
|
|
|
Guarantors
|
|
|
Guarantors
|
|
|
Eliminations
|
|
|
Consolidated
|
|
|
For the Year Ended December 31, 2009
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net sales
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
7,985
|
|
|
$
|
162
|
|
|
$
|
(132
|
)
|
|
$
|
8,015
|
|
Net sales, related party
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
404
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
404
|
|
Cost of products sold
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4,541
|
|
|
|
76
|
|
|
|
(132
|
)
|
|
|
4,485
|
|
Selling, general and administrative expenses
|
|
|
16
|
|
|
|
1,419
|
|
|
|
73
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,508
|
|
Amortization expense
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
28
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
28
|
|
Restructuring charge
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
56
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
56
|
|
Trademark impairment charges
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
567
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
567
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating income (loss)
|
|
|
(16
|
)
|
|
|
1,778
|
|
|
|
13
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,775
|
|
Interest and debt expense
|
|
|
242
|
|
|
|
9
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
251
|
|
Interest income
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(9
|
)
|
|
|
(10
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(19
|
)
|
Intercompany interest (income) expense
|
|
|
(115
|
)
|
|
|
114
|
|
|
|
1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Intercompany dividend income
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(43
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
43
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other (income) expense, net
|
|
|
(4
|
)
|
|
|
13
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
9
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income (loss) before income taxes
|
|
|
(139
|
)
|
|
|
1,694
|
|
|
|
22
|
|
|
|
(43
|
)
|
|
|
1,534
|
|
Provision for (benefit from) income taxes
|
|
|
(48
|
)
|
|
|
620
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
572
|
|
Equity income from subsidiaries
|
|
|
1,053
|
|
|
|
25
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1,078
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income
|
|
$
|
962
|
|
|
$
|
1,099
|
|
|
$
|
22
|
|
|
$
|
(1,121
|
)
|
|
$
|
962
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For the Year Ended December 31, 2008
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net sales
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
8,345
|
|
|
$
|
157
|
|
|
$
|
(125
|
)
|
|
$
|
8,377
|
|
Net sales, related party
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
468
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
468
|
|
Cost of products sold
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4,917
|
|
|
|
71
|
|
|
|
(125
|
)
|
|
|
4,863
|
|
Selling, general and administrative expenses
|
|
|
15
|
|
|
|
1,417
|
|
|
|
68
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,500
|
|
Amortization expense
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
22
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
22
|
|
Restructuring charge
|
|
|
6
|
|
|
|
81
|
|
|
|
3
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
90
|
|
Trademark impairment charges
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
318
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
318
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating income (loss)
|
|
|
(21
|
)
|
|
|
2,058
|
|
|
|
15
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,052
|
|
Interest and debt expense
|
|
|
265
|
|
|
|
9
|
|
|
|
1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
275
|
|
Interest income
|
|
|
(1
|
)
|
|
|
(44
|
)
|
|
|
(15
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(60
|
)
|
Gain on termination of joint venture
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(328
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(328
|
)
|
Intercompany interest (income) expense
|
|
|
(81
|
)
|
|
|
76
|
|
|
|
5
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Intercompany dividend income
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(43
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
43
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other (income) expense, net
|
|
|
5
|
|
|
|
33
|
|
|
|
(1
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
37
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income (loss) before income taxes
|
|
|
(209
|
)
|
|
|
2,027
|
|
|
|
353
|
|
|
|
(43
|
)
|
|
|
2,128
|
|
Provision for (benefit from) income taxes
|
|
|
(73
|
)
|
|
|
862
|
|
|
|
1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
790
|
|
Equity income from subsidiaries
|
|
|
1,474
|
|
|
|
352
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1,826
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income
|
|
$
|
1,338
|
|
|
$
|
1,517
|
|
|
$
|
352
|
|
|
$
|
(1,869
|
)
|
|
$
|
1,338
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For the Year Ended December 31, 2007
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net sales
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
8,494
|
|
|
$
|
123
|
|
|
$
|
(101
|
)
|
|
$
|
8,516
|
|
Net sales, related party
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
507
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
507
|
|
Cost of products sold
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5,005
|
|
|
|
54
|
|
|
|
(99
|
)
|
|
|
4,960
|
|
Selling, general and administrative expenses
|
|
|
53
|
|
|
|
1,583
|
|
|
|
51
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,687
|
|
Amortization expense
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
23
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
23
|
|
Trademark impairment charges
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
65
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
65
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating income (loss)
|
|
|
(53
|
)
|
|
|
2,325
|
|
|
|
18
|
|
|
|
(2
|
)
|
|
|
2,288
|
|
Interest and debt expense
|
|
|
324
|
|
|
|
14
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
338
|
|
Interest income
|
|
|
(4
|
)
|
|
|
(126
|
)
|
|
|
(4
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(134
|
)
|
Intercompany interest (income) expense
|
|
|
(114
|
)
|
|
|
109
|
|
|
|
5
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Intercompany dividend income
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(43
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
43
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other (income) expense, net
|
|
|
24
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(13
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
11
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income (loss) before income taxes and extraordinary item
|
|
|
(283
|
)
|
|
|
2,371
|
|
|
|
30
|
|
|
|
(45
|
)
|
|
|
2,073
|
|
Provision for (benefit from) income taxes
|
|
|
(100
|
)
|
|
|
864
|
|
|
|
2
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
766
|
|
Equity income from subsidiaries
|
|
|
1,491
|
|
|
|
28
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1,519
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income before extraordinary item
|
|
|
1,308
|
|
|
|
1,535
|
|
|
|
28
|
|
|
|
(1,564
|
)
|
|
|
1,307
|
|
Extraordinary item gain on acquisition
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income
|
|
$
|
1,308
|
|
|
$
|
1,536
|
|
|
$
|
28
|
|
|
$
|
(1,564
|
)
|
|
$
|
1,308
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
138
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
Condensed
Consolidating Statements of Cash Flows
(Dollars in Millions)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Parent
|
|
|
|
|
|
Non-
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Issuer
|
|
|
Guarantors
|
|
|
Guarantors
|
|
|
Eliminations
|
|
|
Consolidated
|
|
|
For the Year Ended December 31, 2009
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash flows from operating activities
|
|
$
|
678
|
|
|
$
|
1,630
|
|
|
$
|
29
|
|
|
$
|
(883
|
)
|
|
$
|
1,454
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash flows from (used in) investing activities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Proceeds from settlement of short-term investments
|
|
|
1
|
|
|
|
18
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
19
|
|
Proceeds from settlement of long-term investments
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6
|
|
Capital expenditures
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(137
|
)
|
|
|
(4
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(141
|
)
|
Acquisition, net of cash acquired
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(43
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(43
|
)
|
Net proceeds from the sale of fixed assets
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
11
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
11
|
|
Proceeds from termination of joint venture
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
24
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
24
|
|
Other, net
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
|
|
Intercompany investment
|
|
|
610
|
|
|
|
(610
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Intercompany notes receivable
|
|
|
40
|
|
|
|
17
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(57
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash flows from (used in) investing activities
|
|
|
651
|
|
|
|
(694
|
)
|
|
|
(23
|
)
|
|
|
(57
|
)
|
|
|
(123
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash flows from (used in) financing activities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dividends paid on common stock
|
|
|
(991
|
)
|
|
|
(840
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
840
|
|
|
|
(991
|
)
|
Dividends paid on preferred stock
|
|
|
(43
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
43
|
|
|
|
|
|
Repurchase of common stock
|
|
|
(5
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(5
|
)
|
Repayments of long-term debt
|
|
|
(189
|
)
|
|
|
(11
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(200
|
)
|
Other, net
|
|
|
4
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4
|
|
Intercompany notes payable
|
|
|
(16
|
)
|
|
|
(40
|
)
|
|
|
(1
|
)
|
|
|
57
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash flows used in financing activities
|
|
|
(1,240
|
)
|
|
|
(891
|
)
|
|
|
(1
|
)
|
|
|
940
|
|
|
|
(1,192
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Effect of exchange rate changes on cash and cash equivalents
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net change in cash and cash equivalents
|
|
|
89
|
|
|
|
45
|
|
|
|
11
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
145
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents at beginning of year
|
|
|
272
|
|
|
|
2,091
|
|
|
|
215
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,578
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents at end of year
|
|
$
|
361
|
|
|
$
|
2,136
|
|
|
$
|
226
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
2,723
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For the Year Ended December 31, 2008
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash flows from operating activities
|
|
$
|
1,141
|
|
|
$
|
1,387
|
|
|
$
|
36
|
|
|
$
|
(1,249
|
)
|
|
$
|
1,315
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash flows from (used in) investing activities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Purchases of short-term investments
|
|
|
(8
|
)
|
|
|
(48
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(56
|
)
|
Proceeds from settlement of short-term investments
|
|
|
7
|
|
|
|
231
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
238
|
|
Proceeds from settlement of long-term investments
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
8
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
8
|
|
Capital expenditures
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(106
|
)
|
|
|
(7
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(113
|
)
|
Distributions from equity investments
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
27
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
27
|
|
Net proceeds from the sale of fixed assets
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
8
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
8
|
|
Proceed from termination of joint venture
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
164
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
164
|
|
Other, net
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
|
|
|
|
1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2
|
|
Intercompany notes receivable
|
|
|
40
|
|
|
|
(29
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(11
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash flows from investing activities
|
|
|
39
|
|
|
|
65
|
|
|
|
185
|
|
|
|
(11
|
)
|
|
|
278
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
139
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Parent
|
|
|
|
|
|
Non-
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Issuer
|
|
|
Guarantors
|
|
|
Guarantors
|
|
|
Eliminations
|
|
|
Consolidated
|
|
|
Cash flows from (used in) financing activities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dividends paid on common stock
|
|
|
(999
|
)
|
|
|
(1,206
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,206
|
|
|
|
(999
|
)
|
Dividends paid on preferred stock
|
|
|
(43
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
43
|
|
|
|
|
|
Repurchase of common stock
|
|
|
(210
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(210
|
)
|
Other, net
|
|
|
3
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3
|
|
Intercompany notes payable
|
|
|
98
|
|
|
|
(40
|
)
|
|
|
(69
|
)
|
|
|
11
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash flows used in financing activities
|
|
|
(1,151
|
)
|
|
|
(1,246
|
)
|
|
|
(69
|
)
|
|
|
1,260
|
|
|
|
(1,206
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Effect of exchange rate changes on cash and cash equivalents
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(24
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(24
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net change in cash and cash equivalents
|
|
|
29
|
|
|
|
206
|
|
|
|
128
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
363
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents at beginning of year
|
|
|
243
|
|
|
|
1,885
|
|
|
|
87
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,215
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents at end of year
|
|
$
|
272
|
|
|
$
|
2,091
|
|
|
$
|
215
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
2,578
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For the Year Ended December 31, 2007
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash flows from operating activities
|
|
$
|
356
|
|
|
$
|
1,067
|
|
|
$
|
6
|
|
|
$
|
(98
|
)
|
|
$
|
1,331
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash flows from (used in) investing activities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Purchases of short-term investments
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(3,764
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(3,764
|
)
|
Proceeds from settlement of short-term investments
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4,655
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4,655
|
|
Capital expenditures
|
|
|
(8
|
)
|
|
|
(126
|
)
|
|
|
(8
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(142
|
)
|
Acquisition, net of cash acquired
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(3
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(3
|
)
|
Distributions from equity investments
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5
|
|
|
|
10
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
15
|
|
Net proceeds from the sale of fixed assets
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
|
|
|
|
2
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3
|
|
Other, net
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1
|
)
|
Intercompany notes receivable
|
|
|
40
|
|
|
|
(847
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
807
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash flows from (used in) investing activities
|
|
|
32
|
|
|
|
(77
|
)
|
|
|
1
|
|
|
|
807
|
|
|
|
763
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash flows from (used in) financing activities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dividends paid on common stock
|
|
$
|
(916
|
)
|
|
$
|
(55
|
)
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
55
|
|
|
$
|
(916
|
)
|
Dividends paid on preferred stock
|
|
|
(43
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
43
|
|
|
|
|
|
Repurchase of common stock
|
|
|
(60
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(60
|
)
|
Repayments of long-term debt
|
|
|
(254
|
)
|
|
|
(75
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(329
|
)
|
Repayments of term loan
|
|
|
(1,542
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1,542
|
)
|
Proceeds from issuance of long-term debt
|
|
|
1,547
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,547
|
|
Deferred debt issuance costs
|
|
|
(15
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(15
|
)
|
Other, net
|
|
|
3
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3
|
|
Intercompany notes payable
|
|
|
839
|
|
|
|
(40
|
)
|
|
|
8
|
|
|
|
(807
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash flows from (used in) financing activities
|
|
|
(441
|
)
|
|
|
(170
|
)
|
|
|
8
|
|
|
|
(709
|
)
|
|
|
(1,312
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net change in cash and cash equivalents
|
|
|
(53
|
)
|
|
|
820
|
|
|
|
15
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
782
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents at beginning of year
|
|
|
296
|
|
|
|
1,065
|
|
|
|
72
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,433
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents at end of year
|
|
$
|
243
|
|
|
$
|
1,885
|
|
|
$
|
87
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
2,215
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
140
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
Condensed
Consolidating Balance Sheets
(Dollars in Millions)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Parent
|
|
|
|
|
|
Non-
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Issuer
|
|
|
Guarantors
|
|
|
Guarantors
|
|
|
Eliminations
|
|
|
Consolidated
|
|
|
December 31, 2009
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Assets
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents
|
|
$
|
361
|
|
|
$
|
2,136
|
|
|
$
|
226
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
2,723
|
|
Short-term investments
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4
|
|
Accounts receivable, net
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
90
|
|
|
|
19
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
109
|
|
Accounts receivable, related party
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
96
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
96
|
|
Notes receivable
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
|
|
|
|
35
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
36
|
|
Other receivables
|
|
|
1
|
|
|
|
13
|
|
|
|
1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
15
|
|
Inventories
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,186
|
|
|
|
35
|
|
|
|
(2
|
)
|
|
|
1,219
|
|
Deferred income taxes, net
|
|
|
13
|
|
|
|
942
|
|
|
|
1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
956
|
|
Prepaid expenses and other
|
|
|
15
|
|
|
|
311
|
|
|
|
11
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
337
|
|
Short-term intercompany notes and interest receivable
|
|
|
80
|
|
|
|
55
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(135
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
Other intercompany receivables
|
|
|
149
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(149
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total current assets
|
|
|
619
|
|
|
|
4,834
|
|
|
|
328
|
|
|
|
(286
|
)
|
|
|
5,495
|
|
Property, plant and equipment, net
|
|
|
7
|
|
|
|
990
|
|
|
|
28
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,025
|
|
Trademarks and other intangible assets, net
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,671
|
|
|
|
47
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,718
|
|
Goodwill
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
8,166
|
|
|
|
19
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
8,185
|
|
Long-term intercompany notes
|
|
|
2,040
|
|
|
|
1,387
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(3,427
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
Investment in subsidiaries
|
|
|
9,708
|
|
|
|
464
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(10,172
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
Other assets and deferred charges
|
|
|
292
|
|
|
|
186
|
|
|
|
134
|
|
|
|
(26
|
)
|
|
|
586
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total assets
|
|
$
|
12,666
|
|
|
$
|
18,698
|
|
|
$
|
556
|
|
|
$
|
(13,911
|
)
|
|
$
|
18,009
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Liabilities and shareholders equity
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accounts payable
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
190
|
|
|
$
|
6
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
196
|
|
Tobacco settlement accruals
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,611
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,611
|
|
Due to related party
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3
|
|
Deferred revenue, related party
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
57
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
57
|
|
Current maturities of long-term debt
|
|
|
300
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
300
|
|
Other current liabilities
|
|
|
355
|
|
|
|
781
|
|
|
|
37
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,173
|
|
Short-term intercompany notes and interest payable
|
|
|
31
|
|
|
|
80
|
|
|
|
24
|
|
|
|
(135
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
Other intercompany payables
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
149
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(149
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total current liabilities
|
|
|
686
|
|
|
|
3,871
|
|
|
|
67
|
|
|
|
(284
|
)
|
|
|
4,340
|
|
Intercompany notes and interest payable
|
|
|
1,387
|
|
|
|
2,040
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(3,427
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
Long-term debt (less current maturities)
|
|
|
4,014
|
|
|
|
122
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4,136
|
|
Deferred income taxes, net
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
456
|
|
|
|
11
|
|
|
|
(26
|
)
|
|
|
441
|
|
Long-term retirement benefits (less current portion)
|
|
|
65
|
|
|
|
2,137
|
|
|
|
16
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,218
|
|
Other noncurrent liabilities
|
|
|
16
|
|
|
|
360
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
376
|
|
Shareholders equity
|
|
|
6,498
|
|
|
|
9,712
|
|
|
|
462
|
|
|
|
(10,174
|
)
|
|
|
6,498
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total liabilities and shareholders equity
|
|
$
|
12,666
|
|
|
$
|
18,698
|
|
|
$
|
556
|
|
|
$
|
(13,911
|
)
|
|
$
|
18,009
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
141
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Parent
|
|
|
|
|
|
Non-
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Issuer
|
|
|
Guarantors
|
|
|
Guarantors
|
|
|
Eliminations
|
|
|
Consolidated
|
|
|
December 31, 2008
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Assets
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents
|
|
$
|
272
|
|
|
$
|
2,091
|
|
|
$
|
215
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
2,578
|
|
Short-term investments
|
|
|
1
|
|
|
|
22
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
23
|
|
Accounts receivable, net
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
68
|
|
|
|
16
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
84
|
|
Accounts receivable, related party
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
91
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
91
|
|
Notes receivable
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
|
|
|
|
34
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
35
|
|
Other receivables
|
|
|
9
|
|
|
|
27
|
|
|
|
1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
37
|
|
Inventories
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,145
|
|
|
|
27
|
|
|
|
(2
|
)
|
|
|
1,170
|
|
Deferred income taxes, net
|
|
|
12
|
|
|
|
825
|
|
|
|
1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
838
|
|
Prepaid expenses and other
|
|
|
35
|
|
|
|
128
|
|
|
|
4
|
|
|
|
(4
|
)
|
|
|
163
|
|
Short-term intercompany notes and interest receivable
|
|
|
81
|
|
|
|
65
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(146
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
Other intercompany receivables
|
|
|
68
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6
|
|
|
|
(74
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total current assets
|
|
|
478
|
|
|
|
4,463
|
|
|
|
304
|
|
|
|
(226
|
)
|
|
|
5,019
|
|
Property, plant and equipment, net
|
|
|
7
|
|
|
|
999
|
|
|
|
25
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,031
|
|
Trademarks and other intangible assets, net
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3,266
|
|
|
|
4
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3,270
|
|
Goodwill
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
8,166
|
|
|
|
8
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
8,174
|
|
Long-term intercompany notes
|
|
|
2,080
|
|
|
|
1,409
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(3,489
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
Investment in subsidiaries
|
|
|
9,751
|
|
|
|
430
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(10,181
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
Other assets and deferred charges
|
|
|
349
|
|
|
|
180
|
|
|
|
160
|
|
|
|
(29
|
)
|
|
|
660
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total assets
|
|
$
|
12,665
|
|
|
$
|
18,913
|
|
|
$
|
501
|
|
|
$
|
(13,925
|
)
|
|
$
|
18,154
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Liabilities and shareholders equity
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accounts payable
|
|
$
|
3
|
|
|
$
|
199
|
|
|
$
|
4
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
206
|
|
Tobacco settlement accruals
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,321
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,321
|
|
Due to related party
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3
|
|
Deferred revenue, related party
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
50
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
50
|
|
Current maturities of long-term debt
|
|
|
189
|
|
|
|
11
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
200
|
|
Other current liabilities
|
|
|
347
|
|
|
|
775
|
|
|
|
25
|
|
|
|
(4
|
)
|
|
|
1,143
|
|
Short-term intercompany notes and interest payable
|
|
|
40
|
|
|
|
81
|
|
|
|
25
|
|
|
|
(146
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
Other intercompany payables
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
74
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(74
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total current liabilities
|
|
|
579
|
|
|
|
3,514
|
|
|
|
54
|
|
|
|
(224
|
)
|
|
|
3,923
|
|
Intercompany notes and interest payable
|
|
|
1,409
|
|
|
|
2,080
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(3,489
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
Long-term debt (less current maturities)
|
|
|
4,362
|
|
|
|
124
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4,486
|
|
Deferred income taxes, net
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
311
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(29
|
)
|
|
|
282
|
|
Long-term retirement benefits (less current portion)
|
|
|
64
|
|
|
|
2,755
|
|
|
|
17
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,836
|
|
Other noncurrent liabilities
|
|
|
14
|
|
|
|
375
|
|
|
|
1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
390
|
|
Shareholders equity
|
|
|
6,237
|
|
|
|
9,754
|
|
|
|
429
|
|
|
|
(10,183
|
)
|
|
|
6,237
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total liabilities and shareholders equity
|
|
$
|
12,665
|
|
|
$
|
18,913
|
|
|
$
|
501
|
|
|
$
|
(13,925
|
)
|
|
$
|
18,154
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
142
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
|
|
Note 21
|
RJR
Guaranteed, Unsecured Notes Condensed Consolidating
Financial Statements
|
The following condensed consolidating financial statements
relate to the guaranties of RJRs $62 million
unsecured notes. See note 12 for additional information
relating to these notes. RAI and certain of its direct or
indirect, wholly owned subsidiaries, have fully and
unconditionally, and jointly and severally, guaranteed these
notes. The following condensed consolidating financial
statements include: the accounts and activities of RAI, the
parent Guarantor; RJR, the issuer of the debt securities; RJR
Tobacco, GPI and certain of RJRs other subsidiaries, the
other Guarantors; other subsidiaries of RAI and RJR, including
Santa Fe, Lane and the Conwood companies, that are not
Guarantors; and elimination adjustments.
143
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
Condensed
Consolidating Statements of Income
(Dollars in Millions)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Parent
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other
|
|
|
Non-
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Guarantor
|
|
|
Issuer
|
|
|
Guarantors
|
|
|
Guarantors
|
|
|
Eliminations
|
|
|
Consolidated
|
|
|
For the Year Ended December 31, 2009
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net sales
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
7,078
|
|
|
$
|
1,139
|
|
|
$
|
(202
|
)
|
|
$
|
8,015
|
|
Net sales, related party
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
396
|
|
|
|
8
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
404
|
|
Cost of products sold
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4,294
|
|
|
|
393
|
|
|
|
(202
|
)
|
|
|
4,485
|
|
Selling, general and administrative expenses
|
|
|
16
|
|
|
|
3
|
|
|
|
1,180
|
|
|
|
309
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,508
|
|
Amortization expense
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
27
|
|
|
|
1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
28
|
|
Restructuring charge
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
56
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
56
|
|
Trademark impairment charges
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
491
|
|
|
|
76
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
567
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating income (loss)
|
|
|
(16
|
)
|
|
|
(3
|
)
|
|
|
1,426
|
|
|
|
368
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,775
|
|
Interest and debt expense
|
|
|
242
|
|
|
|
8
|
|
|
|
1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
251
|
|
Interest income
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1
|
)
|
|
|
(7
|
)
|
|
|
(11
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(19
|
)
|
Intercompany interest (income) expense
|
|
|
(115
|
)
|
|
|
(7
|
)
|
|
|
(49
|
)
|
|
|
171
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Intercompany dividend income
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(43
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
43
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other (income) expense, net
|
|
|
(4
|
)
|
|
|
12
|
|
|
|
2
|
|
|
|
(1
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
9
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income (loss) before income taxes
|
|
|
(139
|
)
|
|
|
28
|
|
|
|
1,479
|
|
|
|
209
|
|
|
|
(43
|
)
|
|
|
1,534
|
|
Provision for (benefit from) income taxes
|
|
|
(48
|
)
|
|
|
(5
|
)
|
|
|
565
|
|
|
|
60
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
572
|
|
Equity income from subsidiaries
|
|
|
1,053
|
|
|
|
941
|
|
|
|
25
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(2,019
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income
|
|
$
|
962
|
|
|
$
|
974
|
|
|
$
|
939
|
|
|
$
|
149
|
|
|
$
|
(2,062
|
)
|
|
$
|
962
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For the Year Ended December 31, 2008
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net sales
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
7,462
|
|
|
$
|
1,143
|
|
|
$
|
(228
|
)
|
|
$
|
8,377
|
|
Net sales, related party
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
460
|
|
|
|
8
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
468
|
|
Cost of products sold
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4,690
|
|
|
|
401
|
|
|
|
(228
|
)
|
|
|
4,863
|
|
Selling, general and administrative expenses
|
|
|
15
|
|
|
|
1
|
|
|
|
1,205
|
|
|
|
279
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,500
|
|
Amortization expense
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
21
|
|
|
|
1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
22
|
|
Restructuring charge
|
|
|
6
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
81
|
|
|
|
3
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
90
|
|
Trademark impairment charges
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
176
|
|
|
|
142
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
318
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating income (loss)
|
|
|
(21
|
)
|
|
|
(1
|
)
|
|
|
1,749
|
|
|
|
325
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,052
|
|
Interest and debt expense
|
|
|
265
|
|
|
|
9
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
275
|
|
Interest income
|
|
|
(1
|
)
|
|
|
(2
|
)
|
|
|
(40
|
)
|
|
|
(17
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(60
|
)
|
Gain on termination of joint venture
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(328
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(328
|
)
|
Intercompany interest (income) expense
|
|
|
(81
|
)
|
|
|
(15
|
)
|
|
|
(88
|
)
|
|
|
184
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Intercompany dividend income
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(43
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
43
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other (income) expense, net
|
|
|
5
|
|
|
|
(2
|
)
|
|
|
34
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
37
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income (loss) before income taxes
|
|
|
(209
|
)
|
|
|
52
|
|
|
|
1,843
|
|
|
|
485
|
|
|
|
(43
|
)
|
|
|
2,128
|
|
Provision for (benefit from) income taxes
|
|
|
(73
|
)
|
|
|
1
|
|
|
|
814
|
|
|
|
48
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
790
|
|
Equity income from subsidiaries
|
|
|
1,474
|
|
|
|
1,380
|
|
|
|
352
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(3,206
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income
|
|
$
|
1,338
|
|
|
$
|
1,431
|
|
|
$
|
1,381
|
|
|
$
|
437
|
|
|
$
|
(3,249
|
)
|
|
$
|
1,338
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For the Year Ended December 31, 2007
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net sales
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
7,677
|
|
|
$
|
1,002
|
|
|
$
|
(163
|
)
|
|
$
|
8,516
|
|
Net sales, related party
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
492
|
|
|
|
15
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
507
|
|
Cost of products sold
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4,784
|
|
|
|
338
|
|
|
|
(162
|
)
|
|
|
4,960
|
|
Selling, general and administrative expenses
|
|
|
53
|
|
|
|
1
|
|
|
|
1,395
|
|
|
|
238
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,687
|
|
Amortization expense
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
22
|
|
|
|
1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
23
|
|
Trademark impairment charges
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
33
|
|
|
|
32
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
65
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating income (loss)
|
|
|
(53
|
)
|
|
|
(1
|
)
|
|
|
1,935
|
|
|
|
408
|
|
|
|
(1
|
)
|
|
|
2,288
|
|
Interest and debt expense
|
|
|
324
|
|
|
|
14
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
338
|
|
Interest income
|
|
|
(4
|
)
|
|
|
(6
|
)
|
|
|
(109
|
)
|
|
|
(15
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(134
|
)
|
Intercompany interest (income) expense
|
|
|
(114
|
)
|
|
|
(4
|
)
|
|
|
(75
|
)
|
|
|
193
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Intercompany dividend income
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(43
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
43
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other (income) expense, net
|
|
|
24
|
|
|
|
(8
|
)
|
|
|
4
|
|
|
|
(9
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
11
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income (loss) before income taxes and extraordinary item
|
|
|
(283
|
)
|
|
|
46
|
|
|
|
2,115
|
|
|
|
239
|
|
|
|
(44
|
)
|
|
|
2,073
|
|
Provision for (benefit from) income taxes
|
|
|
(100
|
)
|
|
|
(1
|
)
|
|
|
795
|
|
|
|
72
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
766
|
|
Equity income from subsidiaries
|
|
|
1,491
|
|
|
|
1,350
|
|
|
|
29
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(2,870
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income before extraordinary item
|
|
|
1,308
|
|
|
|
1,397
|
|
|
|
1,349
|
|
|
|
167
|
|
|
|
(2,914
|
)
|
|
|
1,307
|
|
Extraordinary item gain on acquisition
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income
|
|
$
|
1,308
|
|
|
$
|
1,397
|
|
|
$
|
1,350
|
|
|
$
|
167
|
|
|
$
|
(2,914
|
)
|
|
$
|
1,308
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
144
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
Condensed
Consolidating Statements of Cash Flows
(Dollars in Millions)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Parent
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other
|
|
|
Non-
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Guarantor
|
|
|
Issuer
|
|
|
Guarantors
|
|
|
Guarantors
|
|
|
Eliminations
|
|
|
Consolidated
|
|
|
For the Year Ended December 31, 2009
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash flows from operating activities
|
|
$
|
678
|
|
|
$
|
1,464
|
|
|
$
|
1,394
|
|
|
$
|
161
|
|
|
$
|
(2,243
|
)
|
|
$
|
1,454
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash flows from (used in) investing activities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Proceeds from settlement of short-term investments
|
|
|
1
|
|
|
|
5
|
|
|
|
12
|
|
|
|
1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
19
|
|
Proceeds from settlement of long-term investments
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6
|
|
Capital expenditures
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(55
|
)
|
|
|
(86
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(141
|
)
|
Acquisition, net of cash acquired
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(43
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(43
|
)
|
Net proceeds from the sale of fixed assets
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
11
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
11
|
|
Proceeds from termination of joint venture
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
24
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
24
|
|
Other, net
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
|
|
Intercompany investment
|
|
|
610
|
|
|
|
(610
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Intercompany notes receivable
|
|
|
40
|
|
|
|
8
|
|
|
|
16
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(64
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash flows from (used in) investing activities
|
|
|
651
|
|
|
|
(596
|
)
|
|
|
(10
|
)
|
|
|
(104
|
)
|
|
|
(64
|
)
|
|
|
(123
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash flows from (used in) financing activities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dividends paid on common stock
|
|
|
(991
|
)
|
|
|
(840
|
)
|
|
|
(1,360
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,200
|
|
|
|
(991
|
)
|
Dividends paid on preferred stock
|
|
|
(43
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
43
|
|
|
|
|
|
Repurchase of common stock
|
|
|
(5
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(5
|
)
|
Repayment of long-term debt
|
|
|
(189
|
)
|
|
|
(11
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(200
|
)
|
Other, net
|
|
|
4
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4
|
|
Intercompany notes payable
|
|
|
(16
|
)
|
|
|
1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(49
|
)
|
|
|
64
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash flows used in financing activities
|
|
|
(1,240
|
)
|
|
|
(850
|
)
|
|
|
(1,360
|
)
|
|
|
(49
|
)
|
|
|
2,307
|
|
|
|
(1,192
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Effect of exchange rate changes on cash and cash equivalents
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net change in cash and cash equivalents
|
|
|
89
|
|
|
|
18
|
|
|
|
24
|
|
|
|
14
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
145
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents at beginning of year
|
|
|
272
|
|
|
|
6
|
|
|
|
1,977
|
|
|
|
323
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,578
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents at end of year
|
|
$
|
361
|
|
|
$
|
24
|
|
|
$
|
2,001
|
|
|
$
|
337
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
2,723
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For the Year Ended December 31, 2008
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash flows from operating activities
|
|
$
|
1,141
|
|
|
$
|
1,035
|
|
|
$
|
1,292
|
|
|
$
|
71
|
|
|
$
|
(2,224
|
)
|
|
$
|
1,315
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash flows from (used in) investing activities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Purchases of short-term investments
|
|
|
(8
|
)
|
|
|
(11
|
)
|
|
|
(28
|
)
|
|
|
(9
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(56
|
)
|
Proceeds from settlement of short-term investments
|
|
|
7
|
|
|
|
4
|
|
|
|
220
|
|
|
|
7
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
238
|
|
Proceeds from settlement of long-term investments
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
8
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
8
|
|
Capital expenditures
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(62
|
)
|
|
|
(51
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(113
|
)
|
Distributions from equity investments
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
27
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
27
|
|
Net proceeds from the sale of fixed assets
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
7
|
|
|
|
1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
8
|
|
Proceeds from termination of joint venture
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
164
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
164
|
|
Other, net
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3
|
|
|
|
(3
|
)
|
|
|
2
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2
|
|
Intercompany notes receivable
|
|
|
40
|
|
|
|
71
|
|
|
|
(105
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(6
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash flows from investing activities
|
|
|
39
|
|
|
|
67
|
|
|
|
37
|
|
|
|
141
|
|
|
|
(6
|
)
|
|
|
278
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash flows from (used in) financing activities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dividends paid on common stock
|
|
|
(999
|
)
|
|
|
(1,126
|
)
|
|
|
(975
|
)
|
|
|
(80
|
)
|
|
|
2,181
|
|
|
|
(999
|
)
|
Dividends paid on preferred stock
|
|
|
(43
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
43
|
|
|
|
|
|
Repurchase of common stock
|
|
|
(210
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(210
|
)
|
Other, net
|
|
|
3
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3
|
|
Intercompany notes payable
|
|
|
98
|
|
|
|
5
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(109
|
)
|
|
|
6
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash flows (used in) from financing activities
|
|
|
(1,151
|
)
|
|
|
(1,121
|
)
|
|
|
(975
|
)
|
|
|
(189
|
)
|
|
|
2,230
|
|
|
|
(1,206
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Effect of exchange rate changes on cash and cash equivalents
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(24
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(24
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net change in cash and cash equivalents
|
|
|
29
|
|
|
|
(19
|
)
|
|
|
354
|
|
|
|
(1
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
363
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents at beginning of year
|
|
|
243
|
|
|
|
25
|
|
|
|
1,623
|
|
|
|
324
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,215
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents at end of year
|
|
$
|
272
|
|
|
$
|
6
|
|
|
$
|
1,977
|
|
|
$
|
323
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
2,578
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
145
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Parent
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other
|
|
|
Non-
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Guarantor
|
|
|
Issuer
|
|
|
Guarantors
|
|
|
Guarantors
|
|
|
Eliminations
|
|
|
Consolidated
|
|
|
For the Year Ended December 31, 2007
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash flows from (used in) operating activities
|
|
$
|
356
|
|
|
$
|
224
|
|
|
$
|
808
|
|
|
$
|
180
|
|
|
$
|
(237
|
)
|
|
$
|
1,331
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash flows from (used in) investing activities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Purchases of short-term investments
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(2
|
)
|
|
|
(3,660
|
)
|
|
|
(102
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(3,764
|
)
|
Proceeds from settlement of short-term investments
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
120
|
|
|
|
4,437
|
|
|
|
98
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4,655
|
|
Acquisition, net of cash acquired
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(3
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(3
|
)
|
Capital expenditures
|
|
|
(8
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(93
|
)
|
|
|
(41
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(142
|
)
|
Distributions from equity investments
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5
|
|
|
|
10
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
15
|
|
Net proceeds from the sale of fixed assets
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
|
|
|
|
2
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3
|
|
Other, net
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1
|
)
|
Net intercompany investments
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(260
|
)
|
|
|
260
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Intercompany notes receivable
|
|
|
40
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(844
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
804
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash flows from (used in) investing activities
|
|
|
32
|
|
|
|
(143
|
)
|
|
|
106
|
|
|
|
(36
|
)
|
|
|
804
|
|
|
|
763
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash flows from (used in) financing activities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dividends paid on common stock
|
|
|
(916
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(139
|
)
|
|
|
(55
|
)
|
|
|
194
|
|
|
|
(916
|
)
|
Dividends paid on preferred stock
|
|
|
(43
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
43
|
|
|
|
|
|
Repurchase of common stock
|
|
|
(60
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(60
|
)
|
Repayments of long-term debt
|
|
|
(254
|
)
|
|
|
(75
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(329
|
)
|
Repayments of term loan
|
|
|
(1,542
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1,542
|
)
|
Proceeds from issuance of long-term debt
|
|
|
1,547
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,547
|
|
Deferred debt issuance costs
|
|
|
(15
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(15
|
)
|
Other, net
|
|
|
3
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3
|
|
Intercompany notes payable
|
|
|
839
|
|
|
|
(3
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(32
|
)
|
|
|
(804
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash flows used in financing activities
|
|
|
(441
|
)
|
|
|
(78
|
)
|
|
|
(139
|
)
|
|
|
(87
|
)
|
|
|
(567
|
)
|
|
|
(1,312
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net change in cash and cash equivalents
|
|
|
(53
|
)
|
|
|
3
|
|
|
|
775
|
|
|
|
57
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
782
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents at beginning of year
|
|
|
296
|
|
|
|
22
|
|
|
|
848
|
|
|
|
267
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,433
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents at end of year
|
|
$
|
243
|
|
|
$
|
25
|
|
|
$
|
1,623
|
|
|
$
|
324
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
2,215
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
146
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
Condensed
Consolidating Balance Sheets
(Dollars in Millions)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Parent
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other
|
|
|
Non-
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Guarantor
|
|
|
Issuer
|
|
|
Guarantors
|
|
|
Guarantors
|
|
|
Eliminations
|
|
|
Consolidated
|
|
|
December 31, 2009
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Assets
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents
|
|
$
|
361
|
|
|
$
|
24
|
|
|
$
|
2,001
|
|
|
$
|
337
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
2,723
|
|
Short-term investments
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
|
|
|
|
2
|
|
|
|
1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4
|
|
Accounts receivable, net
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
47
|
|
|
|
62
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
109
|
|
Accounts receivable, related party
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
96
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
96
|
|
Note receivable
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
35
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
36
|
|
Other receivables
|
|
|
1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
9
|
|
|
|
5
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
15
|
|
Inventories
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
760
|
|
|
|
461
|
|
|
|
(2
|
)
|
|
|
1,219
|
|
Deferred income taxes, net
|
|
|
13
|
|
|
|
1
|
|
|
|
914
|
|
|
|
28
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
956
|
|
Prepaid expenses and other
|
|
|
15
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
295
|
|
|
|
27
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
337
|
|
Short-term intercompany notes and interest receivable
|
|
|
80
|
|
|
|
31
|
|
|
|
173
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(284
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
Other intercompany receivables
|
|
|
149
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
26
|
|
|
|
(175
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total current assets
|
|
|
619
|
|
|
|
58
|
|
|
|
4,297
|
|
|
|
982
|
|
|
|
(461
|
)
|
|
|
5,495
|
|
Property, plant and equipment, net
|
|
|
7
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
781
|
|
|
|
237
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,025
|
|
Trademarks and other intangible assets, net
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,352
|
|
|
|
1,366
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,718
|
|
Goodwill
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5,303
|
|
|
|
2,882
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
8,185
|
|
Long-term intercompany notes
|
|
|
2,040
|
|
|
|
190
|
|
|
|
1,387
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(3,617
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
Investment in subsidiaries
|
|
|
9,708
|
|
|
|
7,869
|
|
|
|
448
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(18,025
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
Other assets and deferred charges
|
|
|
292
|
|
|
|
57
|
|
|
|
156
|
|
|
|
134
|
|
|
|
(53
|
)
|
|
|
586
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total assets
|
|
$
|
12,666
|
|
|
$
|
8,174
|
|
|
$
|
13,724
|
|
|
$
|
5,601
|
|
|
$
|
(22,156
|
)
|
|
$
|
18,009
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Liabilities and shareholders equity
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accounts payable
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
117
|
|
|
$
|
79
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
196
|
|
Tobacco settlement accruals
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,568
|
|
|
|
43
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,611
|
|
Due to related party
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3
|
|
Deferred revenue, related party
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
57
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
57
|
|
Current maturities of long-term debt
|
|
|
300
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
300
|
|
Other current liabilities
|
|
|
355
|
|
|
|
6
|
|
|
|
690
|
|
|
|
122
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,173
|
|
Short-term intercompany notes and interest payable
|
|
|
31
|
|
|
|
131
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
122
|
|
|
|
(284
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
Other intercompany payables
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
39
|
|
|
|
136
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(175
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total current liabilities
|
|
|
686
|
|
|
|
176
|
|
|
|
3,571
|
|
|
|
366
|
|
|
|
(459
|
)
|
|
|
4,340
|
|
Intercompany notes and interest payable
|
|
|
1,387
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,230
|
|
|
|
(3,617
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
Long-term debt (less current maturities)
|
|
|
4,014
|
|
|
|
122
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4,136
|
|
Deferred income taxes, net
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
494
|
|
|
|
(53
|
)
|
|
|
441
|
|
Long-term retirement benefits (less current portion)
|
|
|
65
|
|
|
|
31
|
|
|
|
2,029
|
|
|
|
93
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,218
|
|
Other noncurrent liabilities
|
|
|
16
|
|
|
|
104
|
|
|
|
255
|
|
|
|
1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
376
|
|
Shareholders equity
|
|
|
6,498
|
|
|
|
7,741
|
|
|
|
7,869
|
|
|
|
2,417
|
|
|
|
(18,027
|
)
|
|
|
6,498
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total liabilities and shareholders equity
|
|
$
|
12,666
|
|
|
$
|
8,174
|
|
|
$
|
13,724
|
|
|
$
|
5,601
|
|
|
$
|
(22,156
|
)
|
|
$
|
18,009
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
147
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Parent
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other
|
|
|
Non-
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Guarantor
|
|
|
Issuer
|
|
|
Guarantors
|
|
|
Guarantors
|
|
|
Eliminations
|
|
|
Consolidated
|
|
|
December 31, 2008
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Assets
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents
|
|
$
|
272
|
|
|
$
|
6
|
|
|
$
|
1,977
|
|
|
$
|
323
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
2,578
|
|
Short-term investments
|
|
|
1
|
|
|
|
6
|
|
|
|
14
|
|
|
|
2
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
23
|
|
Accounts receivable, net
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
38
|
|
|
|
46
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
84
|
|
Accounts receivable, related party
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
88
|
|
|
|
3
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
91
|
|
Note receivable
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
34
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
35
|
|
Other receivables
|
|
|
9
|
|
|
|
1
|
|
|
|
23
|
|
|
|
4
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
37
|
|
Inventories
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
784
|
|
|
|
388
|
|
|
|
(2
|
)
|
|
|
1,170
|
|
Deferred income taxes, net
|
|
|
12
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
806
|
|
|
|
20
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
838
|
|
Prepaid expenses and other
|
|
|
35
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
125
|
|
|
|
10
|
|
|
|
(7
|
)
|
|
|
163
|
|
Short-term intercompany notes and interest receivable
|
|
|
81
|
|
|
|
35
|
|
|
|
183
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(299
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
Other intercompany receivables
|
|
|
68
|
|
|
|
19
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2
|
|
|
|
(89
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total current assets
|
|
|
478
|
|
|
|
68
|
|
|
|
4,038
|
|
|
|
832
|
|
|
|
(397
|
)
|
|
|
5,019
|
|
Property, plant and equipment, net
|
|
|
7
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
856
|
|
|
|
168
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,031
|
|
Trademarks and other intangible assets, net
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,869
|
|
|
|
1,401
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3,270
|
|
Goodwill
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5,303
|
|
|
|
2,871
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
8,174
|
|
Long-term intercompany notes
|
|
|
2,080
|
|
|
|
207
|
|
|
|
1,408
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(3,695
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
Investment in subsidiaries
|
|
|
9,751
|
|
|
|
8,000
|
|
|
|
413
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(18,164
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
Other assets and deferred charges
|
|
|
349
|
|
|
|
63
|
|
|
|
310
|
|
|
|
161
|
|
|
|
(223
|
)
|
|
|
660
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total assets
|
|
$
|
12,665
|
|
|
$
|
8,338
|
|
|
$
|
14,197
|
|
|
$
|
5,433
|
|
|
$
|
(22,479
|
)
|
|
$
|
18,154
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Liabilities and shareholders equity
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accounts payable
|
|
$
|
3
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
181
|
|
|
$
|
22
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
206
|
|
Tobacco settlement accruals
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,288
|
|
|
|
33
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,321
|
|
Due to related party
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2
|
|
|
|
1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3
|
|
Deferred revenue, related party
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
50
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
50
|
|
Current maturities of long-term debt
|
|
|
189
|
|
|
|
11
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
200
|
|
Other current liabilities
|
|
|
347
|
|
|
|
7
|
|
|
|
676
|
|
|
|
120
|
|
|
|
(7
|
)
|
|
|
1,143
|
|
Short-term intercompany notes and interest payable
|
|
|
40
|
|
|
|
130
|
|
|
|
2
|
|
|
|
127
|
|
|
|
(299
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
Other intercompany payables
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
89
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(89
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total current liabilities
|
|
|
579
|
|
|
|
148
|
|
|
|
3,288
|
|
|
|
303
|
|
|
|
(395
|
)
|
|
|
3,923
|
|
Intercompany notes and interest payable
|
|
|
1,409
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,286
|
|
|
|
(3,695
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
Long-term debt (less current maturities)
|
|
|
4,362
|
|
|
|
124
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4,486
|
|
Deferred income taxes, net
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
505
|
|
|
|
(223
|
)
|
|
|
282
|
|
Long-term retirement benefits (less current portion)
|
|
|
64
|
|
|
|
32
|
|
|
|
2,646
|
|
|
|
94
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,836
|
|
Other noncurrent liabilities
|
|
|
14
|
|
|
|
106
|
|
|
|
263
|
|
|
|
7
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
390
|
|
Shareholders equity
|
|
|
6,237
|
|
|
|
7,928
|
|
|
|
8,000
|
|
|
|
2,238
|
|
|
|
(18,166
|
)
|
|
|
6,237
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total liabilities and shareholders equity
|
|
$
|
12,665
|
|
|
$
|
8,338
|
|
|
$
|
14,197
|
|
|
$
|
5,433
|
|
|
$
|
(22,479
|
)
|
|
$
|
18,154
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
148
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
|
|
Note 22
|
Quarterly
Results of Operations (Unaudited)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
First
|
|
|
Second
|
|
|
Third
|
|
|
Fourth
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net sales
|
|
$
|
1,921
|
|
|
$
|
2,250
|
|
|
$
|
2,152
|
|
|
$
|
2,096
|
|
Gross profit
|
|
|
923
|
|
|
|
1,049
|
|
|
|
1,014
|
|
|
|
948
|
|
Net
income(1)
|
|
|
8
|
|
|
|
377
|
|
|
|
362
|
|
|
|
215
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Per share
data(2):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Basic:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income
|
|
$
|
0.03
|
|
|
$
|
1.29
|
|
|
$
|
1.24
|
|
|
$
|
0.74
|
|
Diluted:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income
|
|
$
|
0.03
|
|
|
$
|
1.29
|
|
|
$
|
1.24
|
|
|
$
|
0.74
|
|
2008
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net sales
|
|
$
|
2,057
|
|
|
$
|
2,339
|
|
|
$
|
2,272
|
|
|
$
|
2,177
|
|
Gross profit
|
|
|
893
|
|
|
|
1,034
|
|
|
|
1,043
|
|
|
|
1,012
|
|
Net
income(1)
|
|
|
505
|
|
|
|
364
|
|
|
|
211
|
|
|
|
258
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Per share
data(2):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Basic:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income
|
|
$
|
1.71
|
|
|
$
|
1.24
|
|
|
$
|
0.72
|
|
|
$
|
0.89
|
|
Diluted:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income
|
|
$
|
1.71
|
|
|
$
|
1.23
|
|
|
$
|
0.72
|
|
|
$
|
0.88
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
First quarter of 2009 net income includes a
$453 million trademark impairment charge. First quarter of
2008 net income includes a $328 million gain on
termination of joint venture. Third quarter of 2008 net
income includes a $91 million restructuring charge and a
$173 million trademark impairment charge. Fourth quarter of
2009 net income includes a $56 million restructuring
charge and a $114 million trademark impairment charge.
Fourth quarter of 2008 net income includes a
$(1) million restructuring charge and a $145 million
trademark impairment charge. |
|
(2) |
|
Income per share is computed independently for each of the
periods presented. The sum of the income per share amounts for
the quarters may not equal the total for the year. |
149
|
|
Item 9.
|
Changes
in and Disagreements with Accountants on Accounting and
Financial Disclosure
|
None.
|
|
Item 9A.
|
Controls
and Procedures
|
Disclosure
Controls and Procedures
(a) RAIs chief executive officer and chief financial
officer have concluded that RAIs disclosure controls and
procedures were effective as of the end of the period covered by
this report, based on their evaluation of these controls and
procedures.
(b) In the first quarter of 2009, the companies
collectively referred to as the Conwood companies and Lane,
implemented an SAP enterprise business system. The
implementation involved changes in systems and accordingly, have
required changes to internal controls. RAIs management has
reviewed the controls affected by the implementation and made
appropriate changes to internal controls as a part of the
implementation. RAIs management believes that the
controls, as modified, are appropriate and functioning
effectively as of the end of the period covered by this report.
Internal
Control over Financial Reporting
Limitation
on the Effectiveness of Controls
Internal controls are designed to provide reasonable assurance
that assets are safeguarded and transactions are properly
recorded, executed and reported in accordance with
managements authorization. The effectiveness of internal
controls is supported by qualified personnel and an organization
structure that provides an appropriate division of
responsibility and formalized procedures. An internal audit
staff regularly monitors the adequacy and effectiveness of
internal controls, including reporting to RAIs audit
committee. Because of its inherent limitations, a system of
internal control over financial reporting can provide only
reasonable assurance and may not prevent or detect
misstatements. See Managements Report on Internal
Control over Financial Reporting in Item 8.
Changes
in Controls
There have been no changes in RAIs internal controls over
financial reporting that occurred during the fourth quarter that
have materially affected, or are reasonably likely to materially
affect, RAIs internal controls over financial reporting.
|
|
Item 9B.
|
Other
Information
|
None.
150
PART III
|
|
Item 10.
|
Directors,
Executive Officers and Corporate Governance
|
Item 10 is incorporated by reference to the following
sections of RAIs definitive Proxy Statement to be filed
with the SEC on or about March 22, 2010, referred to as the
Proxy Statement: The Board of Directors
Item 1: Election of Directors; The Board of
Directors Biographies of Board Members;
The Board of Directors Governance
Agreement; The Board of Directors
Committees and Meetings of the Board of Directors
Audit and Finance Committee; The Board of
Directors Code of Conduct; and Security
Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and Management
Section 16(a) Beneficial Ownership Reporting
Compliance. For information regarding the executive
officers and certain significant employees of RAI, see
Executive Officers and Certain Significant Employees of
the Registrant in Item 4 of Part I of this
report.
|
|
Item 11.
|
Executive
Compensation
|
Item 11 is incorporated by reference to the following
sections of the Proxy Statement: Executive
Compensation; Executive Compensation
Compensation Committee Report; The Board of
Directors Committees and Meetings of the Board of
Directors Compensation and Leadership Development
Committee; Compensation Committee Interlocks and Insider
Participation; and The Board of
Directors Director Compensation.
|
|
Item 12.
|
Security
Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and Management and
Related Stockholder Matters
|
Item 12 is incorporated by reference to the following
sections of the Proxy Statement: Security Ownership of
Certain Beneficial Owners and Management Stock
Ownership of Principal Shareholders; Security
Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and
Management Stock Ownership of Management;
Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and
Management Standstill Provisions; Transfer
Restrictions. For information regarding securities
authorized for issuance under equity compensation plans, see
note 16 to consolidated financial statements.
|
|
Item 13.
|
Certain
Relationships and Related Transactions, and Director
Independence
|
Item 13 is incorporated by reference to the following
sections of the Proxy Statement: Certain Relationships and
Related Transactions; and The Board of
Directors Determination of Independence of
Directors.
|
|
Item 14.
|
Principal
Accountant Fees and Services
|
Item 14 is incorporated by reference to the following
sections of the Proxy Statement: Audit Matters
Audit Committees Audit and Non-Audit Services Pre-Approval
Policy; and Audit Matters Fees of
Independent Auditors.
151
PART IV
|
|
Item 15.
|
Exhibits
and Financial Statement Schedules
|
(a) The following documents are filed as a part of this
report:
|
|
|
|
(1)
|
Consolidated Statements of Income for the years ended
December 31, 2009, 2008 and 2007.
|
Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows for the years ended
December 31, 2009, 2008 and 2007.
Consolidated Balance Sheets as of December 31, 2009 and
2008.
Consolidated Statements of Shareholders Equity and
Comprehensive Income for the years ended December 31, 2009,
2008 and 2007.
|
|
|
|
(2)
|
Financial Statement Schedules have been omitted because the
information required has been separately disclosed in the
consolidated financial statements or notes.
|
(3) See (b) below.
|
|
|
|
(b)
|
Exhibit Numbers 10.32 through 10.69 below are management
contracts, compensatory plans or arrangements. The following
exhibits are filed or furnished, as the case may be, as part of
this report:
|
|
|
|
|
|
Exhibit
|
|
|
Number
|
|
|
|
|
3
|
.1
|
|
Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation of Reynolds
American Inc. (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 1 to
Reynolds American Inc.s
Form 8-A
filed July 29, 2004).
|
|
3
|
.2
|
|
Articles of Amendment of Amended and Restated Articles of
Incorporation of Reynolds American Inc. (incorporated by
reference to Exhibit 3.1 to Reynolds American Inc.s
Quarterly Report on
Form 10-Q
for the quarter ended June 30, 2007, filed August 2,
2007).
|
|
3
|
.3
|
|
Amended and Restated Bylaws of Reynolds American Inc., dated
December 4, 2008 (incorporated by reference to
Exhibit 3.1 to Reynolds American Inc.s
Form 8-K
dated December 4, 2008).
|
|
4
|
.1
|
|
Rights Agreement, between Reynolds American Inc. and The Bank of
New York, as rights agent (incorporated by reference to
Exhibit 3 to Reynolds American Inc.s
Form 8-A
filed July 29, 2004).
|
|
4
|
.2
|
|
Amended and Restated Indenture, dated as of July 24, 1995,
between RJR Nabisco, Inc. and The Bank of New York (incorporated
by reference to Exhibit 4.1 to RJR Nabisco, Inc.s
Quarterly Report on
Form 10-Q
for the quarter ended June 30, 1995, filed August 8,
1995).
|
|
4
|
.3
|
|
First Supplemental Indenture and Waiver, dated as of
April 27, 1999, between RJR Nabisco, Inc. and The Bank of
New York, to the Amended and Restated Indenture, dated as of
July 24, 1995, between RJR Nabisco, Inc. and The Bank of
New York, as successor trustee (incorporated by reference to
Exhibit 10.3 to R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Holdings, Inc.s
Form 8-A
filed May 19, 1999).
|
|
4
|
.4
|
|
Indenture, dated as of May 20, 2002, by and among R.J.
Reynolds Tobacco Holdings, Inc., R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company,
RJR Acquisition Corp. and The Bank of New York (incorporated by
reference to Exhibit 4.3 to R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Holdings,
Inc.s
Form 8-K
dated May 15, 2002).
|
|
4
|
.5
|
|
First Supplemental Indenture dated as of June 30, 2003,
among GMB, Inc., FSH, Inc., R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., Santa Fe
Natural Tobacco Company, Inc., RJR Packaging, LLC, R. J.
Reynolds Tobacco Holdings, Inc., R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company,
RJR Acquisition Corp. and The Bank of New York, as Trustee, to
the Indenture dated as of May 20, 2002, among R. J.
Reynolds Tobacco Holdings, Inc., R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company,
RJR Acquisition Corp. and The Bank of New York, as Trustee
(incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4.2 to R.J. Reynolds
Tobacco Holdings, Inc.s Quarterly Report on
Form 10-Q
for the quarter ended June 30, 2003, filed August 8,
2003).
|
|
4
|
.6
|
|
Second Supplemental Indenture, dated as of July 30, 2004,
among R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Holdings, Inc., Reynolds American
Inc., R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, RJR Acquisition Corp., GMB,
Inc., FSH, Inc., R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., RJR Packaging, LLC,
BWT Brands, Inc. and The Bank of New York, as Trustee, to the
Indenture dated May 20, 2002, among R.J. Reynolds Tobacco
Holdings, Inc., R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, RJR Acquisition
Corp. and The Bank of New York (incorporated by reference to
Exhibit 4.3 to Reynolds American Inc.s
Form 8-K
dated July 30, 2004).
|
152
|
|
|
|
|
Exhibit
|
|
|
Number
|
|
|
|
|
4
|
.7
|
|
Third Supplemental Indenture, dated May 31, 2006, to
Indenture, dated May 20, 2002, among R.J. Reynolds Tobacco
Holdings, Inc., Reynolds American Inc. and certain subsidiaries
of R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Holdings, Inc. as guarantors and The
Bank of New York Trust Company, N.A. as Trustee
(incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4.6 to Reynolds
American Inc.s
Form 8-K
dated May 31, 2006).
|
|
4
|
.8
|
|
Fourth Supplemental Indenture, dated June 20, 2006, to
Indenture, dated May 20, 2002, among R.J. Reynolds Tobacco
Holdings, Inc., Reynolds American Inc. and certain subsidiaries
of R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Holdings, Inc. as guarantors and The
Bank of New York Trust Company, N.A. as Trustee
(incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4.7 to Reynolds
American Inc.s
Form 8-K
dated June 20, 2006).
|
|
4
|
.9
|
|
Fifth Supplemental Indenture, dated September 30, 2006, to
Indenture, dated May 20, 2002, among R.J. Reynolds Tobacco
Holdings, Inc., Reynolds American Inc. and certain subsidiaries
of R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Holdings, Inc. as guarantors, and The
Bank of New York Trust Company, N.A., as successor to The
Bank of New York, as Trustee, as amended (incorporated by
reference to Exhibit 4.2 to Reynolds American Inc.s
Form 8-K
dated September 30, 2006).
|
|
4
|
.10
|
|
Indenture, dated May 31, 2006, among Reynolds American Inc.
and certain of its subsidiaries as guarantors and The Bank of
New York Trust Company, N.A. as Trustee (incorporated by
reference to Exhibit 4.1 to Reynolds American Inc.s
Form 8-K
dated May 31, 2006).
|
|
4
|
.11
|
|
First Supplemental Indenture, dated September 30, 2006, to
Indenture, dated May 31, 2006, among Reynolds American Inc.
and certain of its subsidiaries as guarantors and The Bank of
New York Trust Company, N.A., as successor to The Bank of
New York, as Trustee (incorporated by reference to
Exhibit 4.1 to Reynolds American Inc.s
Form 8-K
dated September 30, 2006).
|
|
4
|
.12
|
|
Second Supplemental Indenture, dated February 6, 2009, to
Indenture, dated May 31, 2006, as supplemented by the First
Supplemental Indenture, dated September 30, 2006, among
Reynolds American Inc. and certain of its subsidiaries as
guarantors and The Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company,
N.A., f/k/a The Bank of New York Trust Company, N.A., as
Trustee (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4.21 to
Reynolds American Inc.s Annual Report on
Form 10-K
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2008, filed
February 23, 2009).
|
|
4
|
.13
|
|
In accordance with Item 601(b)(4)(iii) of
Regulation S-K,
Reynolds American Inc. agrees to furnish to the SEC, upon
request, a copy of each instrument that defines the rights of
holders of such long term debt not filed or incorporated by
reference as an exhibit to this Annual Report on
Form 10-K.
|
|
10
|
.1
|
|
Fifth Amended and Restated Credit Agreement, dated as of
June 28, 2007, among Reynolds American Inc., the agents and
other parties named therein, and the lending institutions listed
from time to time on Annex I thereto (incorporated by
reference to Exhibit 10.1 to Reynolds American Inc.s
Form 8-K
dated June 28, 2007).
|
|
10
|
.2
|
|
First Amendment to Credit Agreement, dated March 31, 2008,
among Reynolds American Inc., the agents and other parties named
therein, and the lending institutions listed from time to time
on Annex I thereto (incorporated by reference to
Exhibit 10.1 to Reynolds American Inc.s
Form 8-K
dated April 7, 2008).
|
|
10
|
.3
|
|
Second Amendment to Credit Agreement, dated June 30, 2009,
among Reynolds American Inc. and the agents and lending
institutions named therein (incorporated by reference to
Exhibit 10.1 to Reynolds American Inc.s
Form 8-K
dated July 8, 2009).
|
|
10
|
.4
|
|
Sixth Amended and Restated Subsidiary Guaranty, dated as of
June 28, 2007, among certain of the subsidiaries of
Reynolds American Inc. as guarantors and JPMorgan Chase Bank,
N.A. as Administrative Agent (incorporated by reference to
Exhibit 10.4 to Reynolds American Inc.s
Form 8-K
dated June 28, 2007).
|
|
10
|
.5
|
|
Joinder Agreement to Sixth Amended and Restated Subsidiary
Guaranty, dated as of January 1, 2009, among JPMorgan Chase
Bank, N.A., as Administrative Agent, and RAI Services Company
(incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.4 to Reynolds
American Inc.s Annual Report on
Form 10-K
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2008, filed
February 23, 2009).
|
153
|
|
|
|
|
Exhibit
|
|
|
Number
|
|
|
|
|
10
|
.6
|
|
Underwriting Agreement, dated June 18, 2007, by and among
Reynolds American Inc., as issuer, Reynolds American Inc.s
subsidiaries that are guaranteeing the Notes and Citigroup
Global Markets Inc., J.P. Morgan Securities Inc., Lehman
Brothers Inc. and Morgan Stanley & Co. Incorporated,
as representatives of the several underwriters named therein
(incorporated by reference to Exhibit 1.1 to Reynolds
American Inc.s
Form 8-K
dated June 18, 2007).
|
|
10
|
.7
|
|
Purchase Agreement, dated April 24, 2006, by and among (i)
Reynolds American Inc., (ii) Reynolds American Inc.s
direct, wholly owned acquisition subsidiary, Pinch Acquisition
Corporation, (iii) Karl J. Breyer, Marshall E. Eisenberg
and Thomas J. Pritzker, not individually, but solely as
co-trustees of those certain separate and distinct trusts listed
therein, and (iv) GP Investor, L.L.C. (incorporated by
reference to Exhibit 2.1 to Reynolds American Inc.s
Form 8-K
dated April 24, 2006).
|
|
10
|
.8
|
|
Amendment No. 1, dated as of May 31, 2006, to the
Purchase Agreement, dated as of April 24, 2006, by and
among Karl J. Breyer, Marshall E. Eisenberg and Thomas J.
Pritzker, not individually, but solely as co-trustees of those
certain separate and distinct trusts listed therein, GP
Investor, L.L.C., Reynolds American Inc. and Conwood Holdings,
Inc. (f/k/a Pinch Acquisition Corporation) (incorporated by
reference to Exhibit 2.1 to Reynolds American Inc.s
Form 8-K
dated May 31, 2006).
|
|
10
|
.9
|
|
Formation Agreement, dated as of July 30, 2004, among
Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corporation (n/k/a
Brown & Williamson Holdings, Inc.), Brown &
Williamson U.S.A., Inc. (n/k/a R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company)
and Reynolds American Inc. (incorporated by reference to
Exhibit 10.1 to Reynolds American Inc.s
Form 8-K
dated July 30, 2004).
|
|
10
|
.10
|
|
Governance Agreement, dated as of July 30, 2004, among
British American Tobacco p.l.c., Brown & Williamson
Tobacco Corporation (n/k/a Brown & Williamson
Holdings, Inc.) and Reynolds American Inc. (incorporated by
reference to Exhibit 10.2 to Reynolds American Inc.s
Form 8-K
dated July 30, 2004).
|
|
10
|
.11
|
|
Amendment No. 1 to the Governance Agreement, dated as of
November 18, 2004, among British American Tobacco p.l.c.,
Brown & Williamson Holdings, Inc. and Reynolds
American Inc. (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.1 to
Reynolds American Inc.s
Form 8-K
dated November 18, 2004).
|
|
10
|
.12
|
|
Amendment No. 2, dated April 29, 2008, to the
Governance Agreement, dated as of July 30, 2004, by and
among British American Tobacco p.l.c., Brown &
Williamson Holdings, Inc. and Reynolds American Inc.
(incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.2 to Reynolds
American Inc.s
Form 8-K
dated April 29, 2008).
|
|
10
|
.13
|
|
Share Repurchase Agreement, dated April 29, 2008, by and
between Reynolds American Inc. and Brown & Williamson
Holdings, Inc. (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.1
to Reynolds American Inc.s
Form 8-K
dated April 29, 2008).
|
|
10
|
.14
|
|
Non-Competition Agreement, dated as of July 30, 2004,
between Reynolds American Inc. and British American Tobacco
p.l.c. (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.3 to
Reynolds American Inc.s
Form 8-K
dated July 30, 2004).
|
|
10
|
.15
|
|
Contract Manufacturing Agreement, dated as of July 30,
2004, by and between R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company and BATUS
Japan, Inc. (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.4 to
Reynolds American Inc.s
Form 8-K
dated July 30, 2004).
|
|
10
|
.16
|
|
October 2005 Amendments to the Contract Manufacturing Agreement,
dated as of July 30, 2004, by and between R. J. Reynolds
Tobacco Company and BATUS Japan, Inc. (incorporated by reference
to Exhibit 10.2 to Reynolds American Inc.s Quarterly
Report on
Form 10-Q
for the quarter ended September 30, 2005, filed
November 3, 2005).
|
|
10
|
.17
|
|
April 30, 2007 Amendments to the Contract Manufacturing
Agreement, dated July 30, 2004, by and between R. J.
Reynolds Tobacco Company and BATUS Japan, Inc. (incorporated by
reference to Exhibit 10.9 to Reynolds American Inc.s
Quarterly Report on
Form 10-Q
for the quarter ended June 30, 2007, filed August 2,
2007).
|
|
10
|
.18
|
|
June 12, 2007 Amendments to the Contract Manufacturing
Agreement, dated July 30, 2004, by and between R. J.
Reynolds Tobacco Company and BATUS Japan, Inc. (incorporated by
reference to Exhibit 10.10 to Reynolds American Inc.s
Quarterly Report on
Form 10-Q
for the quarter ended June 30, 2007, filed August 2,
2007).
|
154
|
|
|
|
|
Exhibit
|
|
|
Number
|
|
|
|
|
10
|
.19
|
|
Letter Agreement, dated March 13, 2008, amending the
Contract Manufacturing Agreement, dated July 30, 2004, by
and between R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company and BATUS Japan, Inc.
(incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.3 to Reynolds
American Inc.s Quarterly Report on
Form 10-Q
for the quarter ended June 30, 2008, filed August 4,
2008).
|
|
10
|
.20
|
|
Contract Manufacturing Agreement, dated as of July 30,
2004, by and between R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company and B.A.T.
(U.K. & Export) Limited (incorporated by reference to
Exhibit 10.5 to Reynolds American Inc.s
Form 8-K
dated July 30, 2004).
|
|
10
|
.21
|
|
Amendment, effective January 2, 2007, to Contract
Manufacturing Agreement, dated as of July 30, 2004, by and
between R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company and B.A.T. (U.K. &
Export) Limited (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.2
to Reynolds American Inc.s Quarterly Report on
Form 10-Q
for the quarter ended March 31, 2007, filed May 4,
2007).
|
|
10
|
.22
|
|
Purchase Agreement dated as of March 9, 1999, as amended
and restated as of May 11, 1999, among R. J. Reynolds
Tobacco Company, RJR Nabisco, Inc. and Japan Tobacco Inc.
(incorporated by reference to Exhibit 2.1 to R. J. Reynolds
Tobacco Holdings, Inc.s
Form 8-K
dated May 12, 1999).
|
|
10
|
.23
|
|
Settlement Agreement dated August 25, 1997, between the
State of Florida and settling defendants in The State of
Florida v. American Tobacco Co. (incorporated by reference
to Exhibit 2 to R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Holdings,
Inc.s
Form 8-K
dated August 25, 1997).
|
|
10
|
.24
|
|
Comprehensive Settlement Agreement and Release dated
January 16, 1998, between the State of Texas and settling
defendants in The State of Texas v. American Tobacco Co.
(incorporated by reference to Exhibit 2 to R. J. Reynolds
Tobacco Holdings, Inc.s
Form 8-K
dated January 16, 1998).
|
|
10
|
.25
|
|
Settlement Agreement and Release in re: The State of
Minnesota v. Philip Morris, Inc., by and among the State of
Minnesota, Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Minnesota and the
various tobacco company defendants named therein, dated as of
May 8, 1998 (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 99.1
to R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Holdings, Inc.s Quarterly Report
on
Form 10-Q
for the quarter ended March 30, 1998, filed May 15,
1998).
|
|
10
|
.26
|
|
Settlement Agreement and Stipulation for Entry of Consent
Judgment in re: The State of Minnesota v. Philip Morris,
Inc., by and among the State of Minnesota, Blue Cross and Blue
Shield of Minnesota and the various tobacco company defendants
named therein, dated as of May 8, 1998 (incorporated by
reference to Exhibit 99.2 to R. J. Reynolds Tobacco
Holdings, Inc.s Quarterly Report on
Form 10-Q
for the quarter ended March 30, 1998, filed May 15,
1998).
|
|
10
|
.27
|
|
Form of Consent Judgment by Judge Kenneth J. Fitzpatrick, Judge
of District Court in re: The State of Minnesota v. Philip
Morris, Inc. (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 99.3 to
R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Holdings, Inc.s Quarterly Report on
Form 10-Q
for the quarter ended March 30, 1998, filed May 15,
1998).
|
|
10
|
.28
|
|
Stipulation of Amendment to Settlement Agreement and for Entry
of Agreed Order dated July 2, 1998, by and among the
Mississippi Defendants, Mississippi and the Mississippi Counsel
in connection with the Mississippi Action (incorporated by
reference to Exhibit 99.2 to R. J. Reynolds Tobacco
Holdings, Inc.s Quarterly Report on
Form 10-Q
for the quarter ended June 30, 1998, filed August 14,
1998).
|
|
10
|
.29
|
|
Stipulation of Amendment to Settlement Agreement and for Entry
of Consent Decree dated July 24, 1998, by and among the
Texas Defendants, Texas and the Texas Counsel in connection with
the Texas Action (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 99.4
to R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Holdings, Inc.s Quarterly Report
on
Form 10-Q
for the quarter ended June 30, 1998, filed August 14,
1998).
|
|
10
|
.30
|
|
Stipulation of Amendment to Settlement Agreement and for Entry
of Consent Decree dated September 11, 1998, by and among
the State of Florida and the tobacco companies named therein
(incorporated by reference to Exhibit 99.1 to R. J.
Reynolds Tobacco Holdings, Inc.s Quarterly Report on
Form 10-Q
for the quarter ended September 30, 1998, filed
November 12, 1998).
|
|
10
|
.31
|
|
Master Settlement Agreement, referred to as the MSA, dated
November 23, 1998, between the Settling States named in the
MSA and the Participating Manufacturers also named therein
(incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4 to R. J. Reynolds
Tobacco Holdings, Inc.s
Form 8-K
dated November 23, 1998).
|
|
10
|
.32
|
|
Amended and Restated Directors and Officers Indemnification
Agreement (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.1 to
Reynolds American Inc.s
Form 8-K
dated February 1, 2005).
|
155
|
|
|
|
|
Exhibit
|
|
|
Number
|
|
|
|
|
10
|
.33
|
|
Reynolds American Inc. Outside Directors Compensation
Summary, effective January 1, 2010.
|
|
10
|
.34
|
|
Equity Incentive Award Plan for Directors of Reynolds American
Inc., referred to as the EIAP (Amended and Restated Effective
November 30, 2007) (incorporated by reference to
Exhibit 10.40 to Reynolds American Inc.s Annual
Report on
Form 10-K
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2007, filed
February 27, 2008).
|
|
10
|
.35
|
|
Form of Deferred Stock Unit Agreement between Reynolds American
Inc. and the Director named therein, pursuant to the EIAP
(incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.32 to Reynolds
American Inc.s Annual Report on
Form 10-K
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2008, filed
February 23, 2009).
|
|
10
|
.36
|
|
Form of Deferred Stock Unit Agreement between R. J. Reynolds
Tobacco Holdings, Inc. and the Director named therein, pursuant
to the EIAP (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.9 to
R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Holdings, Inc.s Quarterly Report on
Form 10-Q
for the quarter ended June 30, 1999, filed August 16,
1999).
|
|
10
|
.37
|
|
Deferred Compensation Plan for Directors of Reynolds American
Inc. (Amended and Restated Effective November 30, 2007)
(incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.43 to Reynolds
American Inc.s Annual Report on
Form 10-K
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2007, filed
February 27, 2008).
|
|
10
|
.38
|
|
Amended and Restated (effective as of May 11,
2007) Reynolds American Inc. Long-Term Incentive Plan
(incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.6 to Reynolds
American Inc.s Quarterly Report on
Form 10-Q
for the quarter ended June 30, 2007, filed August 2,
2007).
|
|
10
|
.39
|
|
Form of Performance Unit Agreement (one-year vesting), dated
February 3, 2009, between Reynolds American Inc. and the
grantee named therein (incorporated by reference to
Exhibit 10.7 to Reynolds American Inc.s Quarterly
Report on
Form 10-Q
for the quarter ended March 31, 2009, filed May 1,
2009).
|
|
10
|
.40
|
|
Form of Performance Unit Agreement (three-year vesting), dated
March 6, 2007, between Reynolds American Inc. and the
grantee named therein (incorporated by reference to
Exhibit 10.9 to Reynolds American Inc.s Quarterly
Report on
Form 10-Q
for the quarter ended March 31, 2007, filed May 4,
2007).
|
|
10
|
.41
|
|
Form of Performance Unit Agreement (three-year vesting), dated
March 6, 2008, between Reynolds American Inc. and the
grantee named therein (incorporated by reference to
Exhibit 10.11 to Reynolds American Inc.s Quarterly
Report on
Form 10-Q
for the quarter ended March 31, 2008, filed May 2,
2008).
|
|
10
|
.42
|
|
Form of Performance Share Agreement (three-year vesting), dated
March 2, 2009, between Reynolds American Inc. and the
grantee named therein (incorporated by reference to
Exhibit 10.1 to Reynolds American Inc.s
Form 8-K
dated March 2, 2009).
|
|
10
|
.43
|
|
Performance Unit Agreement (three-year vesting), dated
March 6, 2007, between Reynolds American Inc. and Jeffrey
A. Eckmann (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.10 to
Reynolds American Inc.s Quarterly Report on
Form 10-Q
for the quarter ended March 31, 2007, filed May 4,
2007).
|
|
10
|
.44
|
|
Performance Unit Agreement (three-year vesting), dated
March 6, 2008, between Reynolds American Inc. and Jeffrey
A. Eckmann (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.12 to
Reynolds American Inc.s Quarterly Report on
Form 10-Q
for the quarter ended March 31, 2008, filed May 2,
2008).
|
|
10
|
.45
|
|
Form of Restricted Stock Agreement, dated March 6, 2007,
between Reynolds American Inc. and the grantee named therein
(incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.11 to Reynolds
American Inc.s Quarterly Report on
Form 10-Q
for the quarter ended March 31, 2007, filed May 4,
2007).
|
|
10
|
.46
|
|
Form of Restricted Stock Agreement, dated March 6, 2008,
between Reynolds American Inc. and the grantee named therein
(incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.13 to Reynolds
American Inc.s Quarterly Report on
Form 10-Q
for the quarter ended March 31, 2008, filed May 2,
2008).
|
|
10
|
.47
|
|
Restricted Stock Agreement, dated March 6, 2007, between
Reynolds American Inc. and Jeffrey A. Eckmann (incorporated by
reference to Exhibit 10.12 to Reynolds American Inc.s
Quarterly Report on
Form 10-Q
for the quarter ended March 31, 2007, filed May 4,
2007).
|
156
|
|
|
|
|
Exhibit
|
|
|
Number
|
|
|
|
|
10
|
.48
|
|
Offer of Employment Letter, dated July 29, 2004, by
Reynolds American Inc. and Susan M. Ivey, accepted by
Ms. Ivey on July 30, 2004 (incorporated by reference
to Exhibit 10.22 to Reynolds American Inc.s Quarterly
Report on
Form 10-Q
for the quarter ended September 30, 2004, filed
November 5, 2004).
|
|
10
|
.49
|
|
Letter Agreement, dated December 19, 2007, regarding
Severance Benefits and Change of Control Protections and
amending July 29, 2004, offer of employment letter, between
Reynolds American Inc. and Susan M. Ivey (incorporated by
reference to Exhibit 10.57 to Reynolds American Inc.s
Annual Report on
Form 10-K
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2007, filed
February 27, 2008).
|
|
10
|
.50
|
|
Offer of Employment Letter dated July 29, 2004, by Reynolds
American Inc. and Jeffrey A. Eckmann, accepted by
Mr. Eckmann on July 29, 2004 (incorporated by
reference to Exhibit 10.24 to Reynolds American Inc.s
Quarterly Report on
Form 10-Q
for the quarter ended September 30, 2004, filed
November 5, 2004).
|
|
10
|
.51
|
|
Letter Agreement, dated February 2, 2005, between Reynolds
American Inc. and Jeffrey A. Eckmann, amending July 29,
2004, offer letter (incorporated by reference to
Exhibit 10.5 to Reynolds American Inc.s
Form 8-K
dated February 1, 2005).
|
|
10
|
.52
|
|
Letter Agreement, dated December 19, 2007, regarding
Severance Benefits and Change of Control Protections and
amending certain prior letter agreements, between Reynolds
American Inc. and Jeffrey A. Eckmann (incorporated by reference
to Exhibit 10.60 to Reynolds American Inc.s Annual
Report on
Form 10-K
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2007, filed
February 27, 2008).
|
|
10
|
.53
|
|
Offer of Employment Letter, dated August 18, 2006, by
Reynolds American Inc. and E. Julia (Judy) Lambeth, accepted by
Ms. Lambeth on August 19, 2006 (incorporated by
reference to Exhibit 10.1 to Reynolds American Inc.s
Form 8-K
dated August 19, 2006).
|
|
10
|
.54
|
|
Offer of Employment Letter, dated December 4, 2006, between
R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company and Daniel M. Delen (incorporated
by reference to Exhibit 10.1 to Reynolds American
Inc.s Quarterly Report on
Form 10-Q
for the quarter ended March 31, 2007, filed May 4,
2007).
|
|
10
|
.55
|
|
May 24, 1999, July 21, 1999, and June 16, 2000,
Letter Agreements between R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company and
Thomas R. Adams (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.64
to Reynolds American Inc.s Annual Report on
Form 10-K
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2007, filed
February 27, 2008).
|
|
10
|
.56
|
|
Form of Amended Letter Agreement regarding Severance Benefits
and Change of Control Protections between Reynolds American Inc.
and the officer named therein (incorporated by reference to
Exhibit 10.67 to Reynolds American Inc.s Annual
Report on
Form 10-K
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2007, filed
February 27, 2008).
|
|
10
|
.57
|
|
Reynolds American Inc. Executive Severance Plan, as amended and
restated effective August 1, 2009 (incorporated by
reference to Exhibit 10.1 to Reynolds American Inc.s
Form 8-K
dated July 21, 2009).
|
|
10
|
.58
|
|
Reynolds American Inc. Annual Incentive Award Plan, as amended
and restated as of January 1, 2009 (incorporated by
reference to Exhibit 10.59 to Reynolds American Inc.s
Annual Report on
Form 10-K
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2008, filed
February 23, 2009).
|
|
10
|
.59
|
|
Amendment No. 1 to the Reynolds American Inc. Annual
Incentive Award Plan, as amended and restated as of
January 1, 2009 (incorporated by reference to
Exhibit 10.2 to Reynolds American Inc.s
Form 8-K
dated February 3, 2009).
|
|
10
|
.60
|
|
Reynolds American Inc. 2009 Omnibus Incentive Compensation Plan
(incorporated by reference to Appendix A of Reynolds
American Inc.s definitive Proxy Statement on
Schedule 14A filed on March 23, 2009).
|
|
10
|
.61
|
|
Retention Trust Agreement dated May 13, 1998, by and
between RJR Nabisco, Inc. and Wachovia Bank, N.A. (incorporated
by reference to Exhibit 10.6 to RJR Nabisco Holdings,
Inc.s Quarterly Report on
Form 10-Q
for the quarter ended June 30, 1998, filed August 14,
1998).
|
|
10
|
.62
|
|
Amendment No. 1 to Retention Trust Agreement, dated
May 13, 1998, by and between RJR Nabisco, Inc. and Wachovia
Bank, N.A., dated October 1, 2006 (incorporated by
reference to Exhibit 10.56 to Reynolds American Inc.s
S-4 filed
October 3, 2006).
|
157
|
|
|
|
|
Exhibit
|
|
|
Number
|
|
|
|
|
10
|
.63
|
|
Amendment No. 2 to Retention Trust Agreement, dated
May 13, 1998, as amended, by and between R.J. Reynolds
Tobacco Holdings, Inc., as successor to RJR Nabisco, Inc., and
Wachovia Bank, N.A. (incorporated by reference to
Exhibit 10.66 to Reynolds American Inc.s Annual
Report on
Form 10-K
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2006, filed
February 27, 2007).
|
|
10
|
.64
|
|
Supplemental Pension Plan for Executives of Brown &
Williamson Tobacco Corporation (n/k/a Brown &
Williamson Holdings, Inc.) (as amended through July 29,
2004) (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.67 to
Reynolds American Inc.s Annual Report on
Form 10-K
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2004, filed
March 9, 2005).
|
|
10
|
.65
|
|
Form of Reynolds American Inc. Trust Agreement, by and
among the executive officer named therein, J.P. Morgan
Trust Company of Delaware, the trustee, as successor to
United States Trust Company, N.A., and Reynolds American
Inc., as administrative agent for the executive (incorporated by
reference to Exhibit 10.65 to Reynolds American Inc.s
Annual Report on
Form 10-K
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2008, filed
February 23, 2009).
|
|
10
|
.66
|
|
Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corporation (n/k/a
Brown & Williamson Holdings, Inc.) Health Care Plan
for Salaried Employees (as amended through July 29, 2004,
by Amendment Nos. 1 and 2) (incorporated by reference to
Exhibit 10.69 to Reynolds American Inc.s Annual
Report on
Form 10-K
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2004, filed
March 9, 2005).
|
|
10
|
.67
|
|
Amendment No. 3, entered into as of December 31, 2004,
to the Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corporation (n/k/a
Brown & Williamson Holdings, Inc.) Health Care Plan
for Salaried Employees (incorporated by reference to
Exhibit 10.70 to Reynolds American Inc.s Annual
Report on
Form 10-K
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2004, filed
March 9, 2005).
|
|
10
|
.68
|
|
Amendment No. 4, entered into as of April 20, 2005, to
the Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corporation Health Care
Plan for Salaried Employees (incorporated by reference to
Exhibit 10.71 to Reynolds American Inc.s Annual
Report on
Form 10-K
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2006, filed
February 27, 2007).
|
|
10
|
.69
|
|
Amendment No. 5, entered into as of December 29, 2006,
to the Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corporation Health
Care Plan for Salaried Employees (incorporated by reference to
Exhibit 10.72 to Reynolds American Inc.s Annual
Report on
Form 10-K
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2006, filed
February 27, 2007).
|
|
10
|
.70
|
|
Supply Agreement, dated May 2, 2005, by and between R. J.
Reynolds Tobacco Company and Alcan Packaging Food and Tobacco
Inc. (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.1 to Reynolds
American Inc.s
Form 8-K
dated May 2, 2005).
|
|
10
|
.71
|
|
First Amendment to Supply Agreement, dated September 16,
2005, by and between R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company and Alcan
Packaging Food and Tobacco Inc. (incorporated by reference to
Exhibit 10.1 to Reynolds American Inc.s Quarterly
Report on
Form 10-Q
for the quarter ended September 30, 2005, filed
November 3, 2005).
|
|
10
|
.72
|
|
Second Amendment to Supply Agreement, effective
December 31, 2008, between R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company
and Alcan Packaging Food and Tobacco Inc. (incorporated by
reference to Exhibit 10.1 to Reynolds American Inc.s
Form 8-K
dated December 31, 2008).
|
|
10
|
.73
|
|
Supply Agreement, dated May 2, 2005, by and between R. J.
Reynolds Tobacco Company and Alcoa Flexible Packaging, LLC
(incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.2 to Reynolds
American Inc.s
Form 8-K
dated May 2, 2005).
|
|
10
|
.74
|
|
Letter, dated January 28, 2008, between R. J. Reynolds
Tobacco Company and Alcoa Flexible Packaging, LLC regarding the
May 2, 2005 Supply Agreement between the parties
(incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.6 to Reynolds
American Inc.s Quarterly Report on
Form 10-Q
for the quarter ended March 31, 2008, filed May 2,
2008).
|
|
10
|
.75
|
|
Supply Agreement, dated May 2, 2005, by and between R. J.
Reynolds Tobacco Company and Mundet Inc. (incorporated by
reference to Exhibit 10.3 to Reynolds American Inc.s
Form 8-K
dated May 2, 2005).
|
|
10
|
.76
|
|
Valuation Payment Settlement Agreement, dated February 20,
2008, by and between R. J. Reynolds Tobacco C.V. and Gallaher
Limited (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.1 to
Reynolds American Inc.s
Form 8-K
dated February 20, 2008).
|
158
|
|
|
|
|
Exhibit
|
|
|
Number
|
|
|
|
|
10
|
.77
|
|
Guarantee of JT International Holding B.V., dated
February 20, 2008, in favor of R. J. Reynolds Tobacco C.V.
(incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.2 to Reynolds
American Inc.s
Form 8-K
dated February 20, 2008).
|
|
12
|
.1
|
|
Computation of Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges for each of
the five years within the period ended December 31, 2009.
|
|
21
|
.1
|
|
Subsidiaries of the Registrant.
|
|
23
|
.1
|
|
Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm.
|
|
31
|
.1
|
|
Certification of Chief Executive Officer relating to RAIs
Annual Report on
Form 10-K
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2009.
|
|
31
|
.2
|
|
Certification of Chief Financial Officer relating to RAIs
Annual Report on
Form 10-K
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2009.
|
|
32
|
.1*
|
|
Certification of Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial
Officer relating to RAIs Annual Report on
Form 10-K
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2009, pursuant to
Section 18 U.S.C. §1350, adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (furnished
herewith).
|
|
101
|
.INS*
|
|
XBRL instance document
|
|
101
|
.SCH*
|
|
XBRL taxonomy extension schema
|
|
101
|
.CAL*
|
|
XBRL taxonomy extension calculation linkbase
|
|
101
|
.DEF*
|
|
XBRL taxonomy extension definition linkbase
|
|
101
|
.LAB*
|
|
XBRL taxonomy extension label linkbase
|
|
101
|
.PRE*
|
|
XBRL taxonomy extension presentation linkbase
|
|
|
|
* |
|
Exhibit is being furnished and shall not be deemed
filed for purposes of Section 18 of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or otherwise
subjected to the liabilities of that Section. This exhibit shall
not be incorporated by reference into any given registration
statement or other document pursuant to the Securities Act of
1933, as amended, except as shall be expressly set forth by
specific reference in such a filing. |
159
SIGNATURES
Pursuant to the requirements of Section 13 or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the registrant has duly caused
this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned,
thereunto duly authorized.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
REYNOLDS AMERICAN INC.
(Registrant)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dated: February 19, 2010
|
|
By:
|
|
/s/ Susan
M. Ivey
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Susan M. Ivey
|
|
|
|
|
Chairman of the Board,
President and Chief Executive Officer
|
Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, this report has been signed below by the following persons
on behalf of the registrant and in the capacities and on the
date indicated.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Signature
|
|
Title
|
|
Date
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/s/ Susan
M. Ivey
Susan
M. Ivey
|
|
Chairman of the Board, President and Chief Executive Officer
(principal executive officer)
|
|
February 19, 2010
|
|
|
|
|
|
/s/ Thomas
R. Adams
Thomas
R. Adams
|
|
Executive Vice President and
Chief Financial Officer
(principal financial officer)
|
|
February 19, 2010
|
|
|
|
|
|
/s/ Frederick
W. Smothers
Frederick
W. Smothers
|
|
Senior Vice President and
Chief Accounting Officer
(principal accounting officer)
|
|
February 19, 2010
|
|
|
|
|
|
/s/ Betsy
S. Atkins
Betsy
S. Atkins
|
|
Director
|
|
February 19, 2010
|
|
|
|
|
|
/s/ Nicandro
Durante
Nicandro
Durante
|
|
Director
|
|
February 19, 2010
|
|
|
|
|
|
/s/ Martin
D. Feinstein
Martin
D. Feinstein
|
|
Director
|
|
February 19, 2010
|
|
|
|
|
|
/s/ Luc
Jobin
Luc
Jobin
|
|
Director
|
|
February 19, 2010
|
|
|
|
|
|
/s/ Holly
K. Koeppel
Holly
K. Koeppel
|
|
Director
|
|
February 19, 2010
|
|
|
|
|
|
/s/ Nana
Mensah
Nana
Mensah
|
|
Director
|
|
February 19, 2010
|
|
|
|
|
|
/s/ Lionel
L. Nowell III
Lionel
L. Nowell III
|
|
Director
|
|
February 19, 2010
|
|
|
|
|
|
/s/ H.G.L.
Powell
H.G.L.
Powell
|
|
Director
|
|
February 19, 2010
|
160
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Signature
|
|
Title
|
|
Date
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/s/ Thomas
C. Wajnert
Thomas
C. Wajnert
|
|
Director
|
|
February 19, 2010
|
|
|
|
|
|
/s/ Neil
R. Withington
Neil
R. Withington
|
|
Director
|
|
February 19, 2010
|
|
|
|
|
|
/s/ John
J. Zillmer
John
J. Zillmer
|
|
Director
|
|
February 19, 2010
|
161