e10vq
UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C. 20549
FORM 10-Q
(Mark One)
|
|
|
þ |
|
QUARTERLY REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 |
For the quarterly period ended March 31, 2010
OR
|
|
|
o |
|
TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 |
For the transition period from to
Commission file number: 1-32258
Reynolds American Inc.
(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)
|
|
|
North Carolina
|
|
20-0546644 |
(State or other jurisdiction of incorporation or organization)
|
|
(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)
(Former name, former address and former fiscal year, if changed from last report)
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 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
Indicate the number of shares outstanding of each of the issuers classes of common stock as
of the latest practicable date: 291,452,114 shares of common stock, par value $.0001 per share, as
of April 9, 2010
Part I Financial Information
|
|
|
Item 1. |
|
Financial Statements |
REYNOLDS AMERICAN INC.
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF INCOME
(Dollars in Millions, Except Per Share Amounts)
(Unaudited)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For the Three Months |
|
|
|
Ended March 31, |
|
|
|
2010 |
|
|
2009 |
|
Net sales(1) |
|
$ |
1,858 |
|
|
$ |
1,832 |
|
Net sales, related party |
|
|
128 |
|
|
|
89 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net sales |
|
|
1,986 |
|
|
|
1,921 |
|
Costs and expenses: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cost of products sold(1)(2)(3)(4) |
|
|
1,070 |
|
|
|
998 |
|
Selling, general and administrative expenses |
|
|
339 |
|
|
|
365 |
|
Amortization expense |
|
|
7 |
|
|
|
8 |
|
Trademark impairment charge |
|
|
|
|
|
|
453 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating income |
|
|
570 |
|
|
|
97 |
|
Interest and debt expense |
|
|
60 |
|
|
|
66 |
|
Interest income |
|
|
(4 |
) |
|
|
(5 |
) |
Other expense, net |
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
19 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income from continuing operations before
income taxes |
|
|
512 |
|
|
|
17 |
|
Provision for income taxes |
|
|
214 |
|
|
|
9 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income from continuing operations |
|
|
298 |
|
|
|
8 |
|
Losses from discontinued operations, net of tax |
|
|
(216 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income |
|
$ |
82 |
|
|
$ |
8 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Basic income per share: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income from continuing operations |
|
$ |
1.02 |
|
|
$ |
0.03 |
|
Losses from discontinued operations |
|
|
(0.74 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income |
|
$ |
0.28 |
|
|
$ |
0.03 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Diluted income per share: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income from continuing operations |
|
$ |
1.02 |
|
|
$ |
0.03 |
|
Losses from discontinued operations |
|
|
(0.74 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income |
|
$ |
0.28 |
|
|
$ |
0.03 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dividends declared per share |
|
$ |
0.90 |
|
|
$ |
0.85 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Excludes excise taxes of $1,017 million and $410 million
for the three months ended March 31, 2010 and 2009,
respectively. |
|
(2) |
|
Includes Master Settlement Agreement, referred to as the
MSA, and other settlement agreements with the states of
Mississippi, Florida, Texas and Minnesota, which together
with the MSA are collectively referred to as the State
Settlement Agreements, expense of $587 million and
$578 million for the three months ended March 31, 2010 and
2009, respectively. |
|
(3) |
|
Includes federal tobacco quota buyout expenses of
$61 million and $52 million for the three months ended
March 31, 2010 and 2009, respectively. |
|
(4) |
|
Includes U.S. Food and Drug Administration, referred to as
FDA, user fees of $16 million for the three months ended
March 31, 2010. |
See Notes to Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements (Unaudited)
3
REYNOLDS AMERICAN INC.
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS
(Dollars in Millions)
(Unaudited)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For the Three Months |
|
|
|
Ended March 31, |
|
|
|
2010 |
|
|
2009 |
|
Cash flows from (used in) operating activities: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income |
|
$ |
82 |
|
|
$ |
8 |
|
Losses from discontinued operations, net of tax |
|
|
216 |
|
|
|
|
|
Adjustments to reconcile to net cash flows from (used in)
continuing operating activities: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Depreciation and amortization |
|
|
35 |
|
|
|
38 |
|
Trademark impairment charge |
|
|
|
|
|
|
453 |
|
Deferred income tax expense |
|
|
46 |
|
|
|
(198 |
) |
Pension and postretirement |
|
|
(275 |
) |
|
|
32 |
|
Tobacco settlement accruals |
|
|
588 |
|
|
|
580 |
|
Other, net |
|
|
148 |
|
|
|
(50 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash flows from operating activities |
|
|
840 |
|
|
|
863 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash flows from (used in) investing activities: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Proceeds from settlement of long-term investments |
|
|
10 |
|
|
|
2 |
|
Capital expenditures |
|
|
(32 |
) |
|
|
(27 |
) |
Other, net |
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
13 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash flows used in investing activities |
|
|
(19 |
) |
|
|
(12 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash flows from (used in) financing activities: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dividends paid on common stock |
|
|
(262 |
) |
|
|
(248 |
) |
Other, net |
|
|
(3 |
) |
|
|
(4 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash flows used in financing activities |
|
|
(265 |
) |
|
|
(252 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Effect of exchange rate changes on cash and cash equivalents |
|
|
(7 |
) |
|
|
(8 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net change in cash and cash equivalents |
|
|
549 |
|
|
|
591 |
|
Cash and cash equivalents at beginning of period |
|
|
2,723 |
|
|
|
2,578 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents at end of period |
|
$ |
3,272 |
|
|
$ |
3,169 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income taxes paid, net of refunds |
|
$ |
40 |
|
|
$ |
10 |
|
Interest paid, net of capitalized interest (2010 $1) |
|
$ |
21 |
|
|
$ |
23 |
|
See Notes to Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements (Unaudited)
4
REYNOLDS AMERICAN INC.
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS
(Dollars in Millions)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
March 31, |
|
|
December 31, |
|
|
|
2010 |
|
|
2009 |
|
|
|
(Unaudited) |
|
|
|
|
|
Assets |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Current assets: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents |
|
$ |
3,272 |
|
|
$ |
2,723 |
|
Accounts receivable |
|
|
117 |
|
|
|
109 |
|
Accounts receivable, related party |
|
|
72 |
|
|
|
96 |
|
Notes receivable |
|
|
36 |
|
|
|
36 |
|
Other receivables |
|
|
16 |
|
|
|
15 |
|
Inventories |
|
|
1,190 |
|
|
|
1,219 |
|
Deferred income taxes, net |
|
|
951 |
|
|
|
956 |
|
Prepaid expenses and other |
|
|
247 |
|
|
|
341 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total current assets |
|
|
5,901 |
|
|
|
5,495 |
|
Property, plant and equipment, net of accumulated depreciation (2010
$1,576; 2009 $1,570) |
|
|
1,024 |
|
|
|
1,025 |
|
Trademarks and other intangible assets, net of accumulated
amortization (2010 $654; 2009 $647) |
|
|
2,711 |
|
|
|
2,718 |
|
Goodwill |
|
|
8,185 |
|
|
|
8,185 |
|
Other assets and deferred charges |
|
|
581 |
|
|
|
586 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
18,402 |
|
|
$ |
18,009 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Liabilities and shareholders equity |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Current liabilities: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accounts payable |
|
$ |
114 |
|
|
$ |
196 |
|
Tobacco settlement accruals |
|
|
3,196 |
|
|
|
2,611 |
|
Due to related party |
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
3 |
|
Deferred revenue, related party |
|
|
37 |
|
|
|
57 |
|
Current maturities of long-term debt |
|
|
300 |
|
|
|
300 |
|
Other current liabilities |
|
|
1,592 |
|
|
|
1,173 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total current liabilities |
|
|
5,241 |
|
|
|
4,340 |
|
Long-term debt (less current maturities) |
|
|
4,127 |
|
|
|
4,136 |
|
Deferred income taxes, net |
|
|
454 |
|
|
|
441 |
|
Long-term retirement benefits (less current portion) |
|
|
1,913 |
|
|
|
2,218 |
|
Other noncurrent liabilities |
|
|
306 |
|
|
|
376 |
|
Commitments and contingencies: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Shareholders equity: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Common stock (shares issued: 2010 291,438,896; 2009 291,424,051) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Paid-in capital |
|
|
8,503 |
|
|
|
8,498 |
|
Accumulated deficit |
|
|
(761 |
) |
|
|
(579 |
) |
Accumulated other comprehensive loss (Defined benefit pension and
postretirement plans: 2010 $(1,327) and 2009 $(1,376), net of
tax) |
|
|
(1,381 |
) |
|
|
(1,421 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total shareholders equity |
|
|
6,361 |
|
|
|
6,498 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
18,402 |
|
|
$ |
18,009 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
See Notes to Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements (Unaudited)
5
Notes to Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements (Unaudited)
Note 1 Business and Summary of Significant Accounting Policies
Overview
The condensed consolidated financial statements (unaudited) include the accounts of Reynolds
American Inc., referred to as RAI, and its wholly owned operating subsidiaries. RAIs wholly owned
operating subsidiaries include R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company; Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Company,
Inc., referred to as Santa Fe; Lane, Limited, referred to as Lane; American Snuff Company, LLC
(formerly known as Conwood Company, LLC) referred to as American Snuff Co., and Niconovum AB.
RAI was incorporated as a holding company in the state of North Carolina in 2004, and its
common stock is listed on the NYSE under the symbol RAI. RAI was created to facilitate the
business combination of the U.S. business of Brown & Williamson Holdings, Inc., referred to as B&W,
with R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company on July 30, 2004.
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 R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Holdings, Inc.,
referred to as 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 American Snuff (formerly the Conwood
segment). The RJR Tobacco segment consists of the primary operations of R. J. Reynolds Tobacco
Company. The American Snuff segment consists of the primary operations of American Snuff Co. and
Lane. RAIs wholly owned subsidiaries, 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. Certain of 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 accompanying interim condensed consolidated financial statements (unaudited) have been
prepared in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of
America, referred to as GAAP, for interim financial information and, in managements opinion,
contain all adjustments, consisting only of normal recurring items, necessary for a fair
presentation of the results for the periods presented. Accordingly, they do not include all of the
information and footnotes required by GAAP for complete financial statements. All material
intercompany balances have been eliminated. RAI has no investments that are accounted for under
the equity or cost methods. For interim reporting purposes, certain costs and expenses are charged
to operations in proportion to the estimated total annual amount expected to be incurred primarily
based on sales volumes. The results for the interim period ended March 31, 2010, are not
necessarily indicative of the results that may be expected for the year ending December 31, 2010.
The condensed consolidated financial statements (unaudited) should be read in conjunction with
the consolidated financial statements and related footnotes, which appear in RAIs Annual Report on
Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2009. Certain reclassifications were made to conform
prior years financial statements to the current presentation. All dollar amounts, other than per
share amounts, are presented in millions, except for amounts set forth in note 9 and as otherwise
noted.
6
Notes to Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements (Unaudited) (Continued)
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
either in 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.
The components of the pension benefits and the postretirement benefits are set forth below:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For The Three Months Ended March 31, |
|
|
|
Pension Benefits |
|
|
Postretirement Benefits |
|
|
|
2010 |
|
|
2009 |
|
|
2010 |
|
|
2009 |
|
Service cost |
|
$ |
7 |
|
|
$ |
8 |
|
|
$ |
1 |
|
|
$ |
1 |
|
Interest cost |
|
|
80 |
|
|
|
78 |
|
|
|
21 |
|
|
|
21 |
|
Expected return on plan assets |
|
|
(89 |
) |
|
|
(83 |
) |
|
|
(5 |
) |
|
|
(6 |
) |
Amortization of prior service cost (credit) |
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
(6 |
) |
|
|
(6 |
) |
Amortization of net loss |
|
|
30 |
|
|
|
24 |
|
|
|
5 |
|
|
|
5 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total benefit cost |
|
$ |
29 |
|
|
$ |
28 |
|
|
$ |
16 |
|
|
$ |
15 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Employer Contributions
RAI disclosed in its financial statements for the year ended December 31, 2009, that it
expected to contribute a minimum of $309 million to its pension plans in 2010, of which $303
million was contributed during the first three months of 2010.
Subsequent Events
RAI has evaluated events that occurred subsequent to March 31, 2010, through the financial
statement issuance date and determined that there were no recordable or reportable subsequent
events, except those disclosed in notes 5 and 9.
Recently Adopted Accounting Guidance
The adoption of the following accounting guidance had no material impact on RAIs consolidated
results of operations, cash flows or financial position:
|
|
|
Effective January 2010, authoritative GAAP requiring new disclosures and
clarifications of existing disclosures of fair value measurements. |
|
|
|
|
Effective February 2010, authoritative GAAP that amends date disclosure of events
that occur after the balance sheet date, but before financial statements are issued or
are available to be issued. |
Note 2 Fair Value of Financial Instruments
RAI determines fair value of assets/(liabilities) using a fair value hierarchy that
distinguishes between market participant assumptions based on market data obtained from sources
independent of the reporting entity, and the reporting entitys own assumptions about market
participant assumptions based on the best information available in the circumstances and expands
disclosure about fair value measurements.
7
Notes to Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements (Unaudited) (Continued)
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.
Financial assets/(liabilities) carried at fair value in the condensed consolidated balance
sheet (unaudited) as of March 31, 2010, were as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Level 1 |
|
Level 2 |
|
Level 3 |
|
Total |
Cash and cash equivalents: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash equivalents |
|
$ |
3,218 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
3,218 |
|
Other assets and deferred charges: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Auction rate securities corporate credit risk |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
34 |
|
|
|
34 |
|
Auction rate securities financial insurance companies |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
8 |
|
|
|
8 |
|
Mortgage-backed security |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
15 |
|
|
|
15 |
|
Marketable equity security |
|
|
18 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
18 |
|
Assets held in grantor trusts |
|
|
12 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
12 |
|
Interest rate swaps fixed to floating rate |
|
|
|
|
|
|
215 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
215 |
|
Interest rate swaps floating to fixed rate |
|
|
|
|
|
|
29 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
29 |
|
Other noncurrent liabilities: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interest rate swaps floating to fixed rate |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(7 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(7 |
) |
Financial
assets/(liabilities) carried at fair value in the condensed consolidated balance
sheet (unaudited) as of December 31, 2009, were as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Level 1 |
|
Level 2 |
|
Level 3 |
|
Total |
Cash and cash equivalents: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash equivalents |
|
$ |
2,679 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
2,679 |
|
Other assets and deferred charges: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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 |
|
Other noncurrent liabilities: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interest rate swaps floating to fixed rate |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(2 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(2 |
) |
There were no changes among the levels in the three months ended March 31, 2010.
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.
The fair value of the auction rate securities, either related to certain financial insurance
companies or linked to the longer-term 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, recovery potential and how these factors changed as ratings on the
underlying collateral migrated from one level to another. There are no defined maturity dates for
any of the auction rate securities before 2016.
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 the mortgage-backed security to be inactive. The
maturity of the mortgage-backed security has been extended to March 2011, with the annual
8
Notes to Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements (Unaudited) (Continued)
option to extend an additional year. Given the underlying collateral and RAIs intent to
continue to extend this security, it will remain a noncurrent asset.
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. For those securities that 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, RAI recognizes the credit loss component of an other-than-temporary impairment in
earnings, and recognizes the noncredit component in other comprehensive loss.
In determining if the impairment of the auction rate securities or the mortgage-backed
security was deemed either temporary or other-than-temporary, 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.
Financial assets classified as Level 3 investments were as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
March 31, 2010 |
|
|
December 31, 2009 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gross |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gross |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Unrealized |
|
|
Estimated |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Unrealized |
|
|
Estimated |
|
|
|
Cost |
|
|
Loss(1) |
|
|
Fair Value |
|
|
Cost |
|
|
Loss(1) |
|
|
Fair Value |
|
Auction rate
securities corporate
credit risk |
|
$ |
95 |
|
|
$ |
(61 |
) |
|
$ |
34 |
|
|
$ |
95 |
|
|
$ |
(65 |
) |
|
$ |
30 |
|
Auction rate
securities financial
insurance companies |
|
|
8 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
8 |
|
|
|
17 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
17 |
|
Mortgage-backed security |
|
|
30 |
|
|
|
(15 |
) |
|
|
15 |
|
|
|
31 |
|
|
|
(15 |
) |
|
|
16 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
133 |
|
|
$ |
(76 |
) |
|
$ |
57 |
|
|
$ |
143 |
|
|
$ |
(80 |
) |
|
$ |
63 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Unrealized gains and losses, net of tax, are reported in accumulated
other comprehensive loss in RAIs condensed consolidated balance
sheets as of March 31, 2010 and December 31, 2009. |
The changes in the Level 3 investments during the three months ended March 31, 2010, were as
follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mortgage-Backed Security |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gross |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Unrealized |
|
|
Estimated |
|
|
|
Cost |
|
|
Loss |
|
|
Fair Value |
|
Balance as of January 1, 2010 |
|
$ |
31 |
|
|
$ |
(15 |
) |
|
$ |
16 |
|
Redemptions |
|
|
(1 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance as of March 31, 2010 |
|
$ |
30 |
|
|
$ |
(15 |
) |
|
$ |
15 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Auction Rate Securities |
|
|
Auction Rate Securities |
|
|
|
Corporate Credit Risk |
|
|
Financial Insurance Companies |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gross |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Unrealized |
|
|
Estimated |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Estimated |
|
|
|
Cost |
|
|
(Loss) Gain |
|
|
Fair Value |
|
|
Cost |
|
|
Fair Value |
|
Balance as of January 1, 2010 |
|
$ |
95 |
|
|
$ |
(65 |
) |
|
$ |
30 |
|
|
$ |
17 |
|
|
$ |
17 |
|
Unrealized gains |
|
|
|
|
|
|
4 |
|
|
|
4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Redemptions |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(9 |
) |
|
|
(9 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance as of March 31, 2010 |
|
$ |
95 |
|
|
$ |
(61 |
) |
|
$ |
34 |
|
|
$ |
8 |
|
|
$ |
8 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
9
Notes to Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements (Unaudited) (Continued)
Fair Value of Debt
The estimated fair value of RAIs and RJRs outstanding long-term notes in the aggregate, was
$4.5 billion and $4.4 billion with an effective average annual interest rate of approximately 5.5%
and 5.5%, as of March 31, 2010 and December 31, 2009, respectively. The fair values are based on
available market quotes, credit spreads and discounted cash flows, as appropriate.
Interest Rate Management
RAI and RJR use interest rate swaps to manage interest rate risk on a portion of
their respective debt obligations. In 2009, RAI and RJR entered 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, 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, and effectively reduced net interest
costs over the remaining life of the notes. At the same time, RAI and RJR terminated an
interest rate swap agreement in the notional amount of $100 million with a maturity date
of June 1, 2012. 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%.
At March 31, 2010, RAI and RJR had no derivative instruments designated as hedges.
As of March 31, 2010, 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
|
|
5.73 years
|
|
5.73 years |
Interest rate swaps are included in the condensed consolidated balance sheets at fair value as
follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
March 31, 2010 |
|
December 31, 2009 |
Not designated as hedging instrument: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other assets and deferred charges |
|
$ |
244 |
|
|
$ |
239 |
|
Long-term debt (less current maturities) |
|
|
(226 |
) |
|
|
(235 |
) |
Other noncurrent liabilities |
|
|
(7 |
) |
|
|
(2 |
) |
Interest rate swaps impacted the condensed consolidated statements of income (unaudited) as
follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For the Three Months |
|
|
Ended March 31, |
|
|
2010 |
|
2009 |
Interest and debt expense |
|
$ |
(12 |
) |
|
$ |
(12 |
) |
Other expense, net |
|
|
|
|
|
|
16 |
|
Credit Risk
RAI and its subsidiaries minimize counterparty credit risk related to their financial
instruments by using major financial institutions.
Note 3 Intangible Assets
There were no changes to the carrying amount of goodwill during the three months ended March
31, 2010.
10
Notes to Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements (Unaudited) (Continued)
The carrying amounts of trademarks and other intangible assets by segment were as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
American |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
RJR Tobacco |
|
|
Snuff |
|
|
All Other |
|
|
Consolidated |
|
|
|
Trademarks |
|
|
Other |
|
|
Trademarks |
|
|
Trademarks |
|
|
Other |
|
|
Trademarks |
|
|
Other |
|
Finite-lived: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance as of December 31, 2009 |
|
$ |
20 |
|
|
$ |
69 |
|
|
$ |
13 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
33 |
|
|
$ |
69 |
|
Amortization |
|
|
(2 |
) |
|
|
(4 |
) |
|
|
(1 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(3 |
) |
|
|
(4 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance as of March 31, 2010 |
|
$ |
18 |
|
|
$ |
65 |
|
|
$ |
12 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
30 |
|
|
$ |
65 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Indefinite-lived: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance as of December 31, 2009 |
|
$ |
1,163 |
|
|
$ |
99 |
|
|
$ |
1,152 |
|
|
$ |
155 |
|
|
$ |
47 |
|
|
$ |
2,470 |
|
|
$ |
146 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance as of March 31, 2009 |
|
$ |
1,163 |
|
|
$ |
99 |
|
|
$ |
1,152 |
|
|
$ |
155 |
|
|
$ |
47 |
|
|
$ |
2,470 |
|
|
$ |
146 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Details of finite-lived intangible assets subject to amortization as of March 31, 2010, were
as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accumulated |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gross |
|
|
Amortization |
|
|
Net |
|
Contract manufacturing |
|
$ |
151 |
|
|
$ |
86 |
|
|
$ |
65 |
|
Trademarks |
|
|
95 |
|
|
|
65 |
|
|
|
30 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
246 |
|
|
$ |
151 |
|
|
$ |
95 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The estimated remaining amortization associated with finite-lived intangible assets is
expected to be expensed as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
Year |
|
Amount |
|
Remainder of 2010 |
|
$ |
19 |
|
2011 |
|
|
23 |
|
2012 |
|
|
20 |
|
2013 |
|
|
16 |
|
2014 |
|
|
10 |
|
Thereafter |
|
|
7 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
95 |
|
|
|
|
|
Note 4 Restructuring Charges
2009 Restructuring Charge
In 2009, RJR Tobacco announced the elimination of approximately 400 full-time
production positions to be substantially completed by December 31, 2010. The cash benefits are
expected to be substantially paid by December 31, 2011.
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. The cash benefits are expected to be substantially paid by December 31, 2011.
11
Notes to Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements (Unaudited) (Continued)
The activity in the restructuring accruals, comprised of employee severance and related
benefits, was as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2009 |
|
|
2008 |
|
|
|
Restructuring |
|
|
Restructuring |
|
|
|
Charge |
|
|
Charge |
|
Balance as of December 31, 2009 |
|
|
48 |
|
|
|
40 |
|
Cash paid in 2010 |
|
|
(2 |
) |
|
|
(9 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance as of March 31, 2010 |
|
$ |
46 |
|
|
$ |
31 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The restructuring accruals were included in the condensed consolidated balance sheet
(unaudited) as of March 31, 2010 as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2009 |
|
|
2008 |
|
|
|
Restructuring |
|
|
Restructuring |
|
|
|
Charge |
|
|
Charge |
|
Other current liabilities |
|
$ |
27 |
|
|
$ |
23 |
|
Other noncurrent liabilities |
|
|
19 |
|
|
|
8 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
46 |
|
|
$ |
31 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Note 5 Discontinued Operations
In 1999,
RJR and RJR Tobacco sold the international tobacco business to
Japan Tobacco Inc., referred to as JTI. Northern Brands International, Inc., referred to as Northern Brands, was part of the
international business of R.J. Reynolds International B.V., a former Netherlands subsidiary of RJR
Tobacco, which was managed by RJR-Macdonald, Inc., referred to as RJR-MI. Northern Brands ceased
being an operating company in 1997 and has been an inactive subsidiary of RJR since that time.
Effective April 13, 2010, RJR Tobacco entered into a comprehensive agreement with the Canadian
federal, provincial and territorial governments, referred to as the Comprehensive Agreement,
resolving a variety of civil claims related to cigarette smuggling in Canada during the period from
1985 through 1999. The Comprehensive Agreement covers all civil claims related to the movement of
contraband tobacco products in Canada during the period 1985 through 1999 that the governments have
asserted or could assert against RJR Tobacco and its affiliates. On April 13, 2010, RJR Tobacco
paid the governments a total of Cdn $325 million. Should RJR Tobacco or its affiliates decide in the future to sell tobacco
products in Canada, they also have agreed to adopt packaging, marking and other measures that will
assist the Canadian governments in their efforts to combat the movement of contraband tobacco
products in Canada.
Separately, on April 13, 2010, Northern Brands entered into a plea agreement with the Ministry
of the Attorney General of Ontario. Under the terms of this agreement, Northern Brands pled guilty
to a one count violation of the Canadian Criminal Code for conspiring to aid other persons to sell
and be in possession of tobacco products that were not packaged and stamped in conformity with the
Canadian Excise Act during the period February 18, 1993 through December 31, 1996. The Judge of the
Ontario Court of Justice accepted the plea by Northern Brands and required it to pay a fine of
Cdn $75 million, which was paid on April 13, 2010. By this plea, the criminal charges that were
originally commenced against Northern Brands and certain of its affiliates in 2003 and any other
charges that could be commenced against Northern Brands and its affiliates by the Canadian
governments relating to contraband tobacco activities have now come to an end.
Although the settlements entered into by RJR Tobacco pursuant to the Comprehensive Agreement
and by Northern Brands related to the plea agreement were effective April 13, 2010, the events that
gave rise to the matters
that were the subject of the respective settlements occurred prior to March 31, 2010.
Accordingly, in addition to the $91 million liability previously accrued by RJR, an adjustment, to
reflect the impact of the separate RJR Tobacco
12
Notes to Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements (Unaudited) (Continued)
settlement to resolve civil claims and the separate
Northern Brands plea agreement, in the aggregate of $307 million, or $216 million after tax, was
recorded during the first quarter of 2010.
This accrual adjustment has been included in losses from discontinued operations in the condensed
consolidated statement of income (unaudited) for the quarter ended March 31, 2010. Of the
aggregate accrual adjustments of $307 million, a total of $303 million, or $213 million after tax,
is classified as a loss on discontinued operations and $4 million, or $3 million after tax, is
classified as a loss on the sale of discontinued operations. The
accruals totaling $398 million
were included in other current liabilities in the condensed consolidated balance sheet (unaudited)
as of March 31, 2010.
See note 9 for additional information related to the terms of the sale of the international
tobacco business.
Note 6 Income Per Share
The components of the calculation of income per share were as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For the Three Months |
|
|
|
Ended March 31, |
|
|
|
2010 |
|
|
2009 |
|
Income from continuing operations |
|
$ |
298 |
|
|
$ |
8 |
|
Losses from discontinued operations |
|
|
(216 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income |
|
$ |
82 |
|
|
$ |
8 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Basic weighted average shares, in thousands |
|
|
291,431 |
|
|
|
291,424 |
|
Effect of dilutive potential shares: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Options |
|
|
95 |
|
|
|
144 |
|
Stock units |
|
|
643 |
|
|
|
38 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Diluted weighted average shares, in thousands |
|
|
292,169 |
|
|
|
291,606 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The basic income per share calculation includes the unvested restricted shares awarded under
the RAI Long-Term Incentive Plan, referred to as the LTIP, as the shares have been determined to be
participating securities because they have non-forfeitable dividend rights equivalent to common
shares.
Note 7 Inventories
The major components of inventories were as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
March 31, 2010 |
|
|
December 31, 2009 |
|
Leaf tobacco |
|
$ |
1,015 |
|
|
$ |
1,052 |
|
Other raw materials |
|
|
61 |
|
|
|
65 |
|
Work in process |
|
|
82 |
|
|
|
80 |
|
Finished products |
|
|
185 |
|
|
|
180 |
|
Other |
|
|
33 |
|
|
|
32 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total |
|
|
1,376 |
|
|
|
1,409 |
|
Less LIFO allowance |
|
|
186 |
|
|
|
190 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
1,190 |
|
|
$ |
1,219 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
RJR Tobacco will perform its annual LIFO inventory valuation at December 31, 2010, as interim
periods represent an estimate of the expected annual valuation.
13
Notes to Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements (Unaudited) (Continued)
Note 8 Income Taxes
The provision for income taxes from continuing operations was as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For the Three Months Ended March 31, |
|
|
2010 |
|
2009 |
Provision for income taxes from continuing operations |
|
$ |
214 |
|
|
$ |
9 |
|
Effective tax rate |
|
|
41.8 |
% |
|
|
53.3 |
% |
The effective tax rate for the first three months of 2010 was unfavorably impacted by a $27
million increase in tax attributable to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 and
the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010. The effective tax rate for the first
three months of 2009 was unfavorably impacted by increases in unrecognized income tax benefits and
increases in tax attributable to accumulated and undistributed foreign earnings. The effective tax
rate includes the impact of federal and state taxes and certain nondeductible items, offset by the
domestic production activities deduction of the American Jobs Creation Act of 2004.
Note 9 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, American Snuff Co. or
their affiliates, including RAI and RJR, or indemnitees, including B&W. These pending legal
proceedings include claims relating to cigarette products manufactured by RJR Tobacco or certain of
its affiliates and indemnitees, as well as claims relating to smokeless tobacco products
manufactured by American Snuff Co. A discussion of the legal proceedings relating to cigarette
products is set forth below under the heading Litigation Affecting the Cigarette Industry. All
of the references under that heading to tobacco-related litigation, smoking and health litigation
and other similar references are references to legal proceedings relating to cigarette products and
are not references to legal proceedings involving smokeless tobacco products, and case numbers
under that heading include only cases involving cigarette products. The legal proceedings relating
to the smokeless tobacco products manufactured by American Snuff Co. are discussed separately under
the heading Smokeless Tobacco Litigation below.
In connection with the B&W business combination, RJR Tobacco has agreed to indemnify B&W and
its affiliates, including its indirect parent, 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 the first three months of each of 2010 and 2009 for funds to be reimbursed to BAT for costs
and expenses incurred arising out of certain tobacco-related litigation.
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,
14
Notes to Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements (Unaudited) (Continued)
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, American Snuff Co. and their affiliates and indemnitees
include, where applicable and otherwise appropriate, preemption by the Federal Cigarette Labeling
and Advertising Act of some or all claims arising after 1969, or by the Comprehensive Smokeless
Tobacco Health Education Act for claims arising after 1986, the lack of any defect in the product,
assumption of the risk, contributory or comparative fault, lack of proximate cause, remoteness,
lack of standing and statutes of limitations or repose. RAI and RJR have asserted additional
defenses, including jurisdictional defenses, in many of the cases in which they are named.
Accounting for Tobacco-Related Litigation Contingencies
In accordance with GAAP, RAI and its subsidiaries, including RJR Tobacco and American Snuff
Co., 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 or indemnitees, or the loss of any
particular claim concerning the use of smokeless tobacco against American Snuff Co., 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. With the exception of Engle and Engle Progeny cases, described below, RJR Tobacco and
its affiliates and indemnitees continue to win the majority of smoking and health tobacco
litigation claims that reach trial, and a very high percentage of the tobacco-related litigation
claims brought against them continue to be dismissed at or before trial. Based on their experience
in the smoking and health tobacco litigation against them and the strength of the defenses
available to them in such litigation, RJR Tobacco and its affiliates believe that their successful
defense of smoking and health tobacco litigation in the past will continue in the future.
No liability for pending smoking and health tobacco litigation was recorded in RAIs condensed
consolidated balance sheet (unaudited) as of March 31, 2010. However, as of March 31, 2010, RJR
Tobacco had liabilities
15
Notes to Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements (Unaudited) (Continued)
totaling $325 million related to non-smoking and health litigation, of which $320 million was
recorded during the first quarter of 2010 related to RJR Tobaccos Comprehensive Agreement with the
Canadian federal, provincial and territorial governments. As of March 31, 2010, Northern Brands had
liabilities of $74 million related to a plea agreement with the Ministry of the Attorney General of
Ontario. A comprehensive discussion of the Canadian matters is set forth below under Other
Litigation and Developments Canadian Matters, and additional details
regarding the settlement are set forth in note 5.
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.
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.
RJR Tobaccos Comprehensive Agreement with the Canadian federal, provincial and territorial
governments resolved all civil claims related to the movement of contraband tobacco products in
Canada during the period 1985 through 1999 that the Canadian governments have asserted or could
assert against RJR Tobacco and its affiliates. These claims were separate from smoking and health
tobacco litigation. A comprehensive discussion of the Canadian matters is set forth below under
Other Litigation and Developments Canadian Matters, and additional
details regarding the settlement are set forth in note 5.
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. The plaintiffs asserted that the defendants conspired to fix the price
of tobacco leaf and to destroy the federal governments tobacco quota and price support program.
Despite legal defenses they believed to be valid, RJR
16
Notes to Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements (Unaudited) (Continued)
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; Adjustments, RJR Tobacco and B&W each has settled certain
cases brought by states concerning the enforcement of State Settlement Agreements. Despite legal
defenses believed to be valid, these cases were settled to avoid further contentious litigation
with the states involved. These enforcement actions involve alleged breaches of State Settlement
Agreements based on specific actions taken by particular defendants. Accordingly, any future
enforcement actions involving State Settlement Agreements will be reviewed by RJR Tobacco on the
merits and should not be affected by the settlement of prior enforcement cases.
American Snuff Co. also believes that it has valid defenses to the smokeless tobacco
litigation against it. American Snuff Co. asserted and will continue to assert some or all of these
defenses in each case at the time and in the manner deemed appropriate by American Snuff Co. and
its counsel. No verdict or judgment has been returned or entered against American Snuff Co. on any
claim for personal injuries allegedly resulting from the use of smokeless tobacco. American Snuff
Co. intends to defend vigorously all smokeless tobacco litigation claims asserted against it. No
liability for pending smokeless tobacco litigation was recorded in RAIs condensed consolidated
balance sheet (unaudited) as of March 31, 2010.
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 American Snuff
Co., 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, American Snuff Co. or their affiliates or indemnitees, or to reasonably estimate the
amount or range of any possible loss.
Although RJR Tobacco believes that it has valid bases for appeals of adverse verdicts in its
pending cases, and RJR Tobacco and RAI believe they have valid defenses to all actions, and intend
to defend all actions vigorously, it is possible that there could be further adverse developments
in pending cases, and that additional cases could be decided unfavorably against RAI, RJR Tobacco
or their affiliates or indemnitees. Determinations of liability or adverse rulings in such cases or
in similar cases involving other cigarette manufacturers as defendants, even if such judgments are
not final, could 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 American Snuff Co., 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 American Snuff Co.
17
Notes to Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements (Unaudited) (Continued)
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 first quarter of 2010, 10 tobacco-related cases were served against RJR Tobacco or
its affiliates or indemnitees. On March 31, 2010, there were 179 cases pending against RJR Tobacco
or its affiliates or indemnitees: 170 in the United States; eight in Canada and one in Israel. The
U.S. case number does not include the 659 individual smoker cases pending in West Virginia state
court as a consolidated action, 7,703 Engle Progeny cases (as hereinafter defined), involving
approximately 9,217 individual plaintiffs, and 2,595 Broin II cases, pending in the United States
against RJR Tobacco or its affiliates or indemnitees, as compared with 4,135 total cases on
March 31, 2009. Of the U.S. cases pending on March 31, 2010, 30 are pending in federal court, 139
in state court, primarily in the following states: Florida (24 cases); Missouri (21 cases); New
York (20 cases); Louisiana (15 cases); California (12 cases) and Maryland (10 cases); 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 March 31, 2010, compared with the number of cases
pending against RJR Tobacco, its affiliates or indemnitees as of January 29, 2010, as reported in
RAIs Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2009, filed with the SEC on
February 19, 2010, and a cross-reference to the discussion of each case type.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Change in |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Number of |
|
|
|
|
RJR Tobaccos |
|
Cases Since |
|
|
|
|
Case Numbers as |
|
January 29, 2010 |
|
Page |
Case Type |
|
of March 31, 2010 |
|
Increase/(Decrease) |
|
Reference |
Individual Smoking and Health |
|
|
98 |
|
|
(8) |
|
|
24 |
|
West Virginia IPIC (Number of Plaintiffs)* |
|
1
(659) |
|
(-13) |
|
|
25 |
|
Engle Progeny (Number of Plaintiffs)** |
|
7,703 (9,217) |
|
(8) (-29) |
|
|
25 |
|
Broin II |
|
|
2,595 |
|
|
No Change |
|
|
29 |
|
Class-Action |
|
|
17 |
|
|
No Change |
|
|
30 |
|
Health-Care Cost Recovery |
|
|
4 |
|
|
No Change |
|
|
34 |
|
State Settlement Agreements-Enforcement
and Validity; Adjustments |
|
|
33 |
|
|
|
(25 |
) |
|
|
40 |
|
Antitrust |
|
|
2 |
|
|
No Change |
|
|
44 |
|
Other Litigation and Developments |
|
|
15 |
|
|
|
(2 |
) |
|
|
44 |
|
|
|
|
* |
|
Includes as one case the 659 cases pending as a consolidated action In
Re: Tobacco Litigation Individual Personal Injury Cases, sometimes
referred to as West Virginia IPIC cases, described below. The West
Virginia IPIC cases have been separated from the Individual Smoking
and Health cases for reporting purposes. |
|
** |
|
The Engle Progeny Cases have been separated from the Individual
Smoking and Health cases for reporting purposes. Plaintiffs counsel
are attempting to include multiple plaintiffs in most of the cases
filed. The increase in the number of cases is the result of the
multiple plaintiff cases being dismissed with instructions to file
individual cases. |
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
18
Notes to Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements (Unaudited) (Continued)
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 March 31, 2010,
RJR Tobacco had been served in 7,703 Engle Progeny Cases in both state and federal courts in
Florida. These cases include approximately 9,217 plaintiffs. The number of cases will likely change
due to individual plaintiffs being severed from multi-plaintiff cases. In addition, as of March 31,
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 findings 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. RJR Tobacco
and B&W filed their petitions for writ of certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court on February 19,
2010. The Department of Justice filed its petition for writ of certiorari on February 19, 2010,
which included a request for reinstatement of its claims for remedies, including disgorgement of
profits.
For a detailed description of these cases, see Engle and Engle Progeny Cases,
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 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.
19
Notes to Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements (Unaudited) (Continued)
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. There are one health
care reimbursement trial, one West Virginia IPIC trial, and four individual smoking and health
trials, exclusive of Engle Progeny trials, scheduled as of March 31, 2010, for RJR Tobacco or its
affiliates and indemnitees through March 31, 2011. There are 63 Engle Progeny cases against RJR
Tobacco and/or B&W set for trial through March 31, 2011, but it is not known how many of these
cases will actually be tried.
Trial Results. From January 1, 2008 through March 31, 2010, 13 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 five cases, including four mistrials, tried in Florida (3), Missouri (1) and West Virginia (1).
Verdicts in favor of the plaintiffs were returned in eight cases tried in Florida.
In the first quarter of 2010, one smoking and health case (and no health-care cost recovery
cases) in which RJR Tobacco was a defendant was tried.
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 the first quarter of 2010, five Engle Progeny Cases in which RJR Tobacco was a defendant
were tried:
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
|
|
In Grossman v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., on February 25, 2010, the court declared a
mistrial due to the jurys inability to reach a decision. Re-trial began on March 29,
2010. On April 21, 2010, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff in Phase
I, finding that the decedent, Laura Grossman, was addicted to cigarettes containing
nicotine and the addiction was the legal cause of her death by lung cancer. |
|
|
|
|
In Douglas v. Philip Morris USA, Inc., a jury returned a verdict in favor of the
plaintiff on March 10, 2010. The jury found the decedent, Charlotte Douglas, to be 50%
at fault, Liggett Group to be 27% at fault, Philip Morris USA to be 18% at fault, and
RJR Tobacco to be 5% at fault, and awarded $5 million in compensatory damages and no
punitive damages. |
|
|
|
|
In Hall v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., on March 11, 2010, a jury returned a verdict
for the plaintiff, found the decedent, Arthur Hall, to be 35% at fault and RJR Tobacco
to be 65% at fault, and awarded $5 million in compensatory damages. On March 12, 2010,
the jury returned a punitive damages award of $12.5 million. |
|
|
|
|
In Cohen v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., a jury returned a verdict in favor of the
plaintiff on March 10, 2010. On March 24, 2010, the jury returned a $10 million
compensatory damages verdict, determined the plaintiff to be 33.3% at fault, RJR Tobacco
to be 33.3% at fault and Philip Morris USA to be 33.3% at fault, and awarded a $20
million punitive damages verdict with $10 million being assigned to each defendant. |
In addition, since the end of the first quarter of 2010, jurors returned a verdict in three
other Engle Progeny cases:
|
|
|
In Clay v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., a jury returned a verdict in favor of the
plaintiff on April 13, 2010, determining the decedent to be 30% at fault, RJR Tobacco to
be 60% at fault, and Liggett Group to be 10% at fault, and awarded $3.5 million in
compensatory damages. On April 14, 2010, the jury awarded $17 million in punitive
damages against RJR Tobacco and $1 million in punitive damages against Liggett Group. |
20
Notes to Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements (Unaudited) (Continued)
|
|
|
In Townsend v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., a jury returned a verdict in favor of the
plaintiff on April 21, 2010, and awarded $10.8 million in compensatory damages and $80 million in punitive
damages. The jury found RJR Tobacco to be 51% at fault and the decedent, Frank
Townsend, to be 49% at fault. As a result, the compensatory damages are reduced to $5.5
million and the punitive damages are reduced to $40.8 million. |
|
|
|
|
In Putney v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., a jury returned a verdict in favor of the
plaintiff on April 26, 2010, determining the decedent to be 35% at
fault, RJR Tobacco to be 30% at fault, Liggett Group to be 20% at fault, and
Philip Morris USA to be 15% at fault. The jury awarded a total of approximately $15 million in
compensatory damages and assigned $2.5 million in punitive damages
to each of RJR Tobacco and Philip Morris USA. |
For a detailed description of the cases above, see Engle and Engle Progeny Cases below.
The following chart reflects the verdicts in the smoking and health cases or health-care
recovery cases that have been tried and remain pending as of March 31, 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 and 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. |
21
Notes to Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements (Unaudited) (Continued)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cross-Reference to |
Date of Verdict |
|
Case Name/Type |
|
Jurisdiction |
|
Verdict |
|
Post-Trial Status |
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. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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 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 and 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 and 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 and Engle
Progeny Cases
below. |
22
Notes to Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements (Unaudited) (Continued)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cross-Reference to |
Date of Verdict |
|
Case Name/Type |
|
Jurisdiction |
|
Verdict |
|
Post-Trial Status |
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. No punitive damages awarded.
|
|
See Engle and 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 awarded.
|
|
See Engle and Engle
Progeny cases
below. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
March 10, 2010
|
|
Douglas v. Philip Morris USA, Inc.
[Engle Progeny]
|
|
Circuit Court,
Hillsborough County,
(Tampa, FL)
|
|
$5 million in compensatory damages; 5% of fault assigned to RJR Tobacco, which reduced the award to $250,000. No punitive damages.
|
|
See Engle and Engle Progeny cases below. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
March 11, 2010
|
|
Hall v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.
[Engle Progeny]
|
|
Circuit Court,
Alachua County,
(Gainesville, FL)
|
|
$5 million compensatory damages; 65% of fault assigned to RJR Tobacco, which reduced the award to $3.25 million; $12.5 million in punitive damages.
|
|
See Engle and Engle Progeny cases below. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
March 10, 2010
|
|
Cohen v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.
[Engle Progeny]
|
|
Circuit Court,
Broward County,
(Ft. Lauderdale, FL)
|
|
$10 million compensatory damages; 33.3% of fault assigned to RJR Tobacco, which reduced the award to $3.3 million; $20 million in punitive damages- $10 million of that assigned to RJR Tobacco.
|
|
See Engle and Engle Progeny cases below. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
April 13, 2010
|
|
Clay v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.
[Engle Progeny]
|
|
Circuit Court,
Escambia County,
(Pensacola, FL)
|
|
$3.5 million compensatory damages; 60% of fault assigned to RJR Tobacco, which reduced the award to $2.1 million; $18 million in punitive damages-$17 million of that assigned to RJR Tobacco.
|
|
See Engle and Engle Progeny cases below. |
23
Notes to Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements (Unaudited) (Continued)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cross-Reference to |
Date of Verdict |
|
Case Name/Type |
|
Jurisdiction |
|
Verdict |
|
Post-Trial Status |
April 21, 2010
|
|
Grossman v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.
[Engle Progeny]
|
|
Circuit Court,
Broward County,
(Ft. Lauderdale, FL)
|
|
Jury found in favor of the
plaintiff; damages phase underway. |
|
See Engle and Engle Progeny cases below. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
April 21, 2010
|
|
Townsend v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.
[Engle Progeny]
|
|
Circuit Court,
Alachua County,
(Gainesville, FL)
|
|
$10.8 million compensatory
damages and $80 million punitive damages; 51% of fault assigned to RJR Tobacco, which reduced the award to $5.5 million in compensatory damages and $40.8 million in punitive damages.
|
|
See Engle and Engle Progeny cases below. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
April 26, 2010
|
|
Putney v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.
[Engle Progeny]
|
|
Circuit Court,
Broward County,
(Ft. Lauderdale, FL)
|
|
$15 million compensatory damages; 30% of fault assigned to RJR
Tobacco, which reduced the award to $4.5 million against RJR Tobacco; $5 million in punitive damages
$2.5 million of that assigned to RJR Tobacco.
|
|
See Engle and Engle Progeny cases below. |
Individual Smoking and Health Cases
As of March 31, 2010, 98 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 95 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 environmental tobacco smoke, referred to as ETS.
Below is a description of the individual smoking and health cases against RJR Tobacco or B&W,
or both, which went to trial or were decided during the period from January 1, 2010 to March 31,
2010, or remained on appeal as of March 31, 2010.
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 re-trial of the case is scheduled
to begin September 27, 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
24
Notes to Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements (Unaudited) (Continued)
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, 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. On March
12, 2010, the plaintiffs motion for leave to reargue was denied. No date has been set for the
punitive damages re-trial.
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. Briefing is underway.
West Virginia IPIC
In West Virginia, as of March 31, 2010, there were 698 cases (of which 659 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 and Engle Progeny Cases
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.
25
Notes to Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements (Unaudited) (Continued)
On July 14, 2000, in the second phase of the trial, 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. 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 eligible plaintiffs are
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.
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 were 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 eligible plaintiffs were 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 eligible members to file individual lawsuits.
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.
Pursuant to the Florida Supreme Courts July 6, 2006, ruling in Engle v. R. J. Reynolds
Tobacco Co., which decertified the class, eligible plaintiffs 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 March 31, 2010, RJR Tobacco had been served in 7,703 Engle Progeny Cases in both state
and federal courts in Florida. These cases include approximately 9,217 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.
Three federal district courts have ruled that the findings in the first phase of the Engle
proceedings cannot be used to satisfy elements of plaintiffs claims, and two of those rulings have
been certified by the trial court for interlocutory review. Engle Progeny cases pending in the
federal district courts in the Middle District of Florida have been stayed pending interlocutory
review by the Eleventh Circuit. State trial court judges have issued contrary rulings that allow
plaintiffs to use the Engle findings to establish elements of their claims and strike certain
defenses.
26
Notes to Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements (Unaudited) (Continued)
In June 2009, Florida amended its existing bond cap statute by adding a $200 million bond cap
that applied to all Engle Progeny lawsuits in the aggregate and establishes individual bond caps
for individual Engle Progeny cases in amounts that vary depending on the number of judgments in
effect at a given time. The legislation, which became effective in June 2009, applies to judgments
entered after the effective date and remains in effect until December 31, 2010.
Below is a description of the Engle Progeny cases against RJR Tobacco or B&W, or both, which
went to trial or were decided during the period from January 1, 2010 to March 31, 2010, or remained
on appeal as of March 31, 2010.
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, 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 USA, Liggett Group 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. On March 17, 2010, the Third District Court of
Appeal affirmed, without opinion, the ruling of the trial court. The defendants filed a motion for
rehearing and a petition for rehearing en banc on April 16, 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
27
Notes to Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements (Unaudited) (Continued)
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 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
complete.
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 been scheduled for September 27, 2010.
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 Philip Morris 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. The plaintiff
sought judgment against each defendant for an amount in excess of $15,000, taxable costs, punitive
damages and interest. 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. Briefing is
underway.
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. On March 10, 2010, the court entered final
judgment against RJR Tobacco in the amount of $4.2 million in compensatory damages and $2 million
in punitive damages.
On February 25, 2010, in Grossman v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., a case filed in December 2007
in the Circuit Court, Broward County, Florida, the court declared a mistrial due to the jurys
inability to reach a decision. The plaintiff alleged that as a result of the decedent, Laura
Grossmans, addiction to cigarettes, she developed lung cancer and died. The plaintiff sought
damages in excess of $15,000 and all taxable costs and interest. Retrial began on March 29, 2010.
On April 21, 2010, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff in Phase I, finding that
the decedent was addicted to cigarettes containing nicotine and the addiction was the legal cause
of her death by lung cancer. The damages phase of the trial is currently underway.
On March 10, 2010, in Douglas v. Philip Morris USA, Inc., a case filed in October 2007 in
Circuit Court, Hillsborough County, Florida, a jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff, found the
decedent, Charlotte Douglas, to be 50% at fault, Liggett Group to be 27% at fault, Philip Morris
USA to be 18% at fault, RJR Tobacco to be 5% at fault, and awarded $5 million in compensatory
damages. No punitive damages were awarded. The plaintiff alleged that as a result of the
decedents addiction to smoking the defendants cigarettes, she suffered bodily injury and died.
Final judgment was entered by the court on March 12, 2010, in the following amounts: Liggett Group
$1.4 million; Philip Morris USA $900,000; and RJR Tobacco $250,000. A hearing on the
defendants post-trial motions is scheduled for June 3, 2010.
In Hall v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., a case filed in December 2007 in the Circuit Court,
Alachua County, Florida, a jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff on March 11, 2010.
The jury also found the decedent,
28
Notes to Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements (Unaudited) (Continued)
Arthur Hall, to be 35% at fault, RJR Tobacco to be 65% at fault, and awarded $5 million in
compensatory damages. On March 12, 2010, the jury returned a $12.5 million punitive damages award.
The plaintiff alleged that as a result of the decedents use of the defendants products he
suffered from lung cancer and died. The plaintiff sought an unspecified amount of compensatory and
punitive damages. On March 23, 2010, the court entered final judgment in the amount of $3.25
million in compensatory damages and $12.5 million in punitive damages. On April 1, 2010, the
plaintiff filed a motion for rehearing on the courts reduction of the compensatory damages award
by the decedents comparative fault.
On March 10, 2010, in Cohen v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., a case filed in May 2007 in the
Circuit Court, Broward County, Florida, a jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff. The
plaintiff alleged that the decedent, Nathan Cohen, developed lung cancer as a result of using the
defendants products. The plaintiff sought in excess of $15,000 compensatory damages and
unspecified punitive damages. On March 24, 2010, the jury awarded the plaintiff $10 million in
compensatory damages with fault being apportioned in thirds: decedent 33.3% at fault, Philip Morris
USA 33.3% at fault, and RJR Tobacco 33.3% at fault. The jury also awarded $20 million in punitive
damages $10 million each against Philip Morris USA and RJR Tobacco.
On April 13, 2010, in Clay 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. The
jury also found the decedent, Janie Mae Clay, to be 30% at fault, RJR Tobacco to be 60% at fault,
and Liggett Group to be 10% at fault, and awarded $3.5 million in compensatory damages. The
plaintiff alleged that the decedent developed addiction, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and
other conditions and diseases as a result of using the defendants products. The plaintiff sought
in excess of $15,000 compensatory damages. On April 14, 2010, the jury awarded $18 million in
punitive damages $17 million against RJR Tobacco and $1 million against Liggett Group.
On April 13, 2010, in Putney v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., a case filed in December 2008 in
the Circuit Court, Broward County, Florida, a jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff.
The plaintiff alleged that the decedent, Margot Putney, suffered from nicotine addiction and lung
cancer as a result of using the defendants products. The plaintiff sought unspecified
compensatory damages. The damages phase of the trial is currently underway.
On April 21, 2010, in Townsend v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., a case filed in December 2007 in
the Circuit Court, Alachua County, Florida, a jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff,
awarded $10.8 million in compensatory damages and $80 million in punitive damages, and found RJR
Tobacco to be 51% at fault and the decedent, Frank Townsend, to be 49% at fault. As a result, the
compensatory damages are reduced to $5.5 million and, the punitive damages are
reduced to $40.8 million. The plaintiff alleged that the decedent suffered from lung cancer and
other conditions and diseases as a result of smoking the defendants products. The plaintiff
sought an unspecified amount of compensatory and punitive damages.
Broin II Cases
RJR Tobacco, B&W and other cigarette manufacturer defendants settled Broin v. Philip Morris,
Inc. in October 1997. This case had been brought in Florida state court on behalf of flight
attendants alleged to have suffered from diseases or ailments caused by exposure to ETS in airplane
cabins. The settlement agreement required the participating tobacco companies to pay a total of
$300 million in three annual $100 million installments, allocated among the companies by market
share, to fund research on the early detection and cure of diseases associated with tobacco smoke.
It also required those companies to pay a total of $49 million for the plaintiffs 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 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 arose out of the settlement of this case.
29
Notes to Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements (Unaudited) (Continued)
On October 5, 2000, the Broin court entered an order applicable to all Broin II cases that the
terms of the Broin settlement agreement do not require the individual Broin II plaintiffs to prove
the elements of strict liability, breach of warranty or negligence. Under this order, there is a
rebuttable presumption in the plaintiffs favor on those elements, and the plaintiffs bear the
burden of proving that their alleged adverse health effects actually were caused by exposure to ETS
in airplane cabins, that is, specific causation.
As of March 31, 2010, there were 2,595 Broin II lawsuits pending in Florida.
Class-Action Suits
Overview. As of March 31, 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.
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
30
Notes to Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements (Unaudited) (Continued)
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. On April 23, 2010, the court of appeals amended but largely
affirmed the trial courts July 21, 2008 judgment. The defendants motion for
rehearing is due on May 7, 2010.
Jackson v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., filed in May 2009, in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Georgia, is a purported RICO class action on behalf of Georgia smokers
claiming that the major U.S. cigarette 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 February 9, 2010, the court granted
the defendants motion to dismiss or, alternatively, for a more definite statement and certain
defendants renewed motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim. On March 10,
2010, the plaintiff filed a notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.
On April 13, 2010, the Eleventh Circuit dismissed the plaintiffs appeal for failure to prosecute.
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. On February 22, 2010, the plaintiffs filed an
amended complaint. The class definition changed to a class consisting of all persons who reside in
the U.S. and tried unsuccessfully to redeem Camel Cash certificate from October 1, 2006 (six months
before the defendant ended the Camel Cash program) or who held Camel Cash certificates as of March
31, 2007. The plaintiffs also brought the class on behalf of a proposed California subclass,
consisting of all California residents meeting the same criteria. On March 22, 2010, RJR Tobacco
filed a motion to dismiss the
31
Notes to Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements (Unaudited) (Continued)
amended complaint for lack of jurisdiction over subject matter and, alternatively, for failure
to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
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 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. Oral argument occurred on February 2, 2010. 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. A
nominal trial date of January 10, 2011 has been scheduled.
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,
32
Notes to Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements (Unaudited) (Continued)
2006. On April 16, 2008, the court stayed the case pending U.S. Supreme Court review in
Good v. Altria Group, Inc. A nominal trial date of January 10, 2011, has been scheduled.
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 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. On February 26, 2010, a stipulation and order was entered to stay proceedings in this
case, and in Thompson below, until completion of all appellate review in Curtis v. Altria Group,
Inc.
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. 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. On February 22, 2010, the court denied the plaintiffs motion for class
certification of all three putative classes. However, the court ruled that the plaintiffs may
reinstate the class dealing with the conspiracy to conceal the addictive nature of nicotine if they
identify a new class representative. On April 13, 2010, the plaintiff filed a motion to reinstate
count I by identifying a new plaintiff, Ms. Ines Taylor, who began smoking during the relevant
period of time alleged in Class A (between December 14, 1953 through July 27, 1965), and for leave
to amend the complaint.
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.
33
Notes to Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements (Unaudited) (Continued)
In Shaffer v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., a case filed in October 2009 in the Superior Court
of Pima County, 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. On November 13, 2009, the defendants removed the case to the U.S. District
Court for the District of Arizona. On November 30, 2009, RJR Tobacco and RAI filed their answers
to the complaint.
As referred to in the Cautionary Statements, 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. In Young v. American Tobacco Co., Inc., a case filed in November 1997 in
Circuit Court, Orleans Parish, Louisiana, the plaintiffs brought an ETS class action against
U.S. cigarette manufacturers, including RJR Tobacco and B&W, and parent companies of U.S. cigarette
manufacturers, including RJR, on behalf of all residents of Louisiana who, though not themselves
cigarette smokers, have been exposed to secondhand smoke from cigarettes which were manufactured by
the defendants, and who allegedly suffered injury as a result of that exposure. The plaintiffs seek
to recover an unspecified amount of compensatory and punitive damages. 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, by tobacco product users and purchasers on behalf of all similarly
situated Missouri consumers. The plaintiffs allege that their use of the defendants tobacco
products has caused them to become addicted to nicotine. The plaintiffs seek to recover an
unspecified amount of compensatory and punitive damages. The case was remanded to the Circuit Court
on February 17, 1999. There has been limited activity in this case.
Health-Care Cost Recovery Cases
Health-care cost recovery cases have been brought by a variety of plaintiffs. Other than
certain governmental actions, these cases largely have been unsuccessful on remoteness grounds,
which means that one who pays an injured persons medical expenses is legally too remote to
maintain an action against the person allegedly responsible for the injury.
As of March 31, 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. 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
34
Notes to Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements (Unaudited) (Continued)
foreign Provincial governments in treating their citizens. For more information on these
cases, see International Cases below.
State Settlement Agreements. In June 1994, the Mississippi attorney general brought an
action, Moore v. American Tobacco Co., against various industry members, including RJR Tobacco and
B&W. This case was brought on behalf of the state to recover state funds paid for health care and
other assistance to state citizens suffering from diseases and conditions allegedly related to
tobacco use. Most other states, through their attorneys general or other state agencies, sued RJR
Tobacco, B&W and other U.S. cigarette manufacturers based on similar theories. The cigarette
manufacturer defendants, including RJR Tobacco and B&W, settled the first four of these cases
scheduled for trial Mississippi, Florida, Texas and Minnesota by separate agreements with each
such state.
On November 23, 1998, the major U.S. cigarette manufacturers, including RJR Tobacco and B&W,
entered into the Master Settlement Agreement with attorneys general representing the remaining
46 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Guam, the Virgin Islands, American Samoa and the
Northern Marianas. Effective on November 12, 1999, the MSA settled all the health-care cost
recovery actions brought by, or on behalf of, the settling jurisdictions and released various
additional present and future claims.
In the settling jurisdictions, the MSA released RJR Tobacco, B&W, and their affiliates and
indemnitees, including RAI, from:
|
|
|
all claims of the settling states and their respective political subdivisions and other
recipients of state health-care funds, relating to past conduct arising out of the use,
sale, distribution, manufacture, development, advertising, marketing or health effects of,
the exposure to, or research, statements or warnings about, tobacco products; and |
|
|
|
|
all monetary claims of the settling states and their respective political subdivisions
and other recipients of state health-care funds, relating to future conduct arising out of
the use of or exposure to, tobacco products that have been manufactured in the ordinary
course of business. |
Set forth below are tables depicting the unadjusted tobacco industry settlement payment
schedule and the settlement payment schedule for RAIs operating subsidiaries under the State
Settlement Agreements, and related information for 2008 and beyond:
Unadjusted Original Participating Manufacturers Settlement Payment Schedule
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2014 and |
|
|
|
2008 |
|
|
2009 |
|
|
2010 |
|
|
2011 |
|
|
2012 |
|
|
2013 |
|
|
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) |
|
|
8,004 |
|
|
|
8,004 |
|
|
|
8,004 |
|
|
|
8,004 |
|
|
|
8,004 |
|
|
|
8,004 |
|
|
|
8,004 |
|
Base Foundation Funding |
|
|
25 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Growers Trust(2) |
|
|
500 |
|
|
|
295 |
|
|
|
295 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Offset by federal tobacco
buyout(2) |
|
|
(500 |
) |
|
|
(295 |
) |
|
|
(295 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total |
|
$ |
9,389 |
|
|
$ |
9,364 |
|
|
$ |
9,364 |
|
|
$ |
9,364 |
|
|
$ |
9,364 |
|
|
$ |
9,364 |
|
|
$ |
9,364 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
RAIs Operating Subsidiaries Settlement Expenses and Payment Schedule
|
|
Settlement expenses |
|
$ |
2,703 |
|
|
$ |
2,540 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Settlement cash payments |
|
$ |
2,830 |
|
|
$ |
2,249 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Projected settlement expenses |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
>2,500 |
|
|
$ |
>2,600 |
|
|
$ |
>2,600 |
|
|
$ |
>2,600 |
|
|
$ |
>2,600 |
|
Projected settlement cash payments |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
>2,500 |
|
|
$ |
>2,500 |
|
|
$ |
>2,600 |
|
|
$ |
>2,600 |
|
|
$ |
>2,600 |
|
35
Notes to Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements (Unaudited) (Continued)
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Subject to adjustments for changes in sales volume, inflation and
other factors. All payments are to be allocated among the companies on
the basis of relative market share. For further information, see
State Settlement Agreements-Enforcement and Validity; Adjustments
below. |
|
(2) |
|
The Growers Trust payments scheduled to expire in 2010 will be offset
by certain 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, based on several federal statutes. In addition, the government sought,
pursuant to the civil provisions of RICO, disgorgement of profits the government contends were
earned as a consequence of a RICO racketeering enterprise. In September 2000, the court dismissed
the governments claims asserted under the Medical Care Recovery Act as well as those under the
Medicare Secondary Payer provisions of the Social Security Act, but did not dismiss the RICO
claims. In February 2005, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled that
disgorgement is not an available remedy in this case. The 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.
36
Notes to Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements (Unaudited) (Continued)
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 of the subsidiaries satisfy Rule 65(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure; |
|
|
|
|
the court held that the provision found in paragraph four of the injunction, concerning
the use of any express or implied health message or health descriptor for any cigarette
brand, should not be read to govern overseas sales. The issue was remanded to the lower
court with instructions to reformulate it so as to exempt foreign activities that have no
substantial, direct, and foreseeable domestic effects; and |
|
|
|
|
the remedial order was vacated regarding point of sale displays and remanded for the
district court to evaluate and make due provisions for the rights of innocent persons,
either by abandoning this part of the remedial order or re-crafting a new version reflecting
the rights of third parties. |
RJR Tobacco and B&W filed their petitions for writ of certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court on
February 19, 2010. The Department of Justice filed its petition for writ of certiorari on February
19, 2010, which included a request for reinstatement of its claims for remedies, including
disgorgement of profits. Briefing is expected to be complete by June 3, 2010.
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 February 2010, the
trial date was adjourned and no new date has been set.
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 the total expenditure by the government for
health-care benefits provided for insured persons resulting from tobacco-related
37
Notes to Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements (Unaudited) (Continued)
disease or the risk of tobacco-related disease caused by alleged breaches of duty by the
manufacturers, the present value of 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. On June 26, 2008, RJR Tobacco filed a notice of
intent to defend and has since filed defenses to these claims.
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
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. RJR Tobacco has yet to
enter its appearance in the case although it has indicated that it will challenge jurisdiction.
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 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 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 each of the cases below, 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.
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
38
Notes to Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements (Unaudited) (Continued)
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.
Native American Tribe Cases. As of March 31, 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 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 March 31, 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. 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 and 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 February 4, 2010, the defendants filed a
motion to dismiss the appeal before the Second Circuit. Oral argument of the appeal is scheduled
for the week of May 10, 2010.
39
Notes to Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements (Unaudited) (Continued)
On August 31, 2009, RJR Tobacco and American Snuff Co. 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 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 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. On November 5, 2009, the court denied certain
plaintiffs motion for preliminary injunction as to the modified risk tobacco products provision of
the FDA Tobacco Act. 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 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 U.S. Government as to all other
challenged provisions. On March 5, 2010, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal of the courts
judgment with the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. The U.S. Government filed its own notice of
appeal with the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals on March 8, 2010. 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; Adjustments
As of March 31, 2010, there were 33 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. On March 10, 2010, the
court issued its opinion, finding that three of the advertising claims made by RJR Tobacco were not
supported by the appropriate degree of scientific evidence. The court did, however, rule that the
remaining six advertising claims challenged by the State of Vermont were not actionable. The court
indicated that remedies and any damages to be awarded, as well as the issue of attorneys fees and
litigation expenses, will be addressed in additional proceedings. On March 22, 2010, RJR Tobacco
filed a motion to amend findings of fact that it believes are demonstrably contrary to, or
unsupported by, the record. The State of Vermont has been granted an extension of time to respond
to that motion.
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
40
Notes to Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements (Unaudited) (Continued)
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 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 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 remanded the case for further proceedings. The
Washington Supreme Court recently declined to review the decision by the Court of Appeals. |
|
|
|
|
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. No monetary sanctions were awarded. 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. The
State has petitioned the Ohio Supreme Court for review, and RJR Tobacco has submitted a
brief in opposition to that request. |
|
|
|
|
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 California court. Both parties have
indicated an intention to appeal. |
|
|
|
|
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. RJR Tobacco has appealed. |
41
Notes to Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements (Unaudited) (Continued)
|
|
|
In Illinois, RJR Tobacco received a complete defense ruling. The State has requested
reconsideration of the courts ruling, and the parties have recently completed briefing on
the States request. |
The three remaining cases in Maryland, New York and Connecticut were
individually settled in the first quarter of 2010 for a non-material amount.
Finally, in Stewart v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., a class-action suit was filed in Superior
Court, Alameda County, California, 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. The California
Appellate Court recently issued an order favoring Wenner Media and remanded the case for further
proceedings consistent with the order. More specifically, it ruled that the trial court erred in
concluding that a triable issue exists as to whether the editorial feature constitutes commercial
speech and also erred in finding that the plaintiffs presented evidence sufficient to establish
that they have probability of prevailing on the merits. The plaintiff subsequently entered an
agreement dismissing its claims against RJR Tobacco, and it will be submitted to the court for
approval shortly.
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 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 March 31, 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
42
Notes to Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements (Unaudited) (Continued)
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 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.
Based on revised calculations by the MSA independent auditor, in April 2010, RJR Tobacco withheld an additional amount, bringing the total amount withheld with respect to the 2006 NPM Adjustment to approximately $420 million. |
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.
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 established under Section VIII(c) of the MSA for each year
covered by that agreement, with RJR Tobacco paying approximately 47% of such amounts.
Based on the payment calculations of the MSA independent auditor and the agreement described
above regarding in pertinent part the 2007 significant factor determination, the adjustment
requirements were satisfied with respect to the NPM Adjustment for 2007. As a result, in April
2010, RJR Tobacco placed approximately $448 million of its 2010 MSA payment (representing its share
of the 2007 NPM Adjustment as calculated by the MSA independent auditor) into the disputed payments
account.
In addition to the NPM Adjustment claims described above, RJR Tobacco has filed dispute
notices with respect to its 2009 and 2010 annual MSA payments relating to the NPM Adjustments
potentially applicable to those years. The amount at issue for those two years is approximately
$944 million.
43
Notes to Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements (Unaudited) (Continued)
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 March 31, 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 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. Oral argument occurred in February 2010, and the parties await a
decision from the New Mexico Supreme Court.
Other Litigation and Developments
Canadian
Matters: 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. |
44
Notes to Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements (Unaudited) (Continued)
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
|
|
On April 13, 2010, Northern Brands entered into a plea agreement with
the Ministry of the Attorney General of Ontario. Under the terms of
this agreement, Northern Brands pled guilty to a one count violation of
the Canadian Criminal Code for conspiring to aid other persons to sell
and be in possession of tobacco products that were not packaged and
stamped in conformity with the Canadian Excise Act during the period
February 18, 1993 through December 31, 1996. The Judge of the Ontario
Court of Justice accepted the plea by Northern Brands and required it
to pay a fine of Cdn $75 million, which was paid on April 13, 2010. By
this plea, the criminal charges that were originally commenced against
Northern Brands and certain of its affiliates in 2003 and any other
charges that could be commenced against Northern Brands and its
affiliates by the Canadian governments relating to contraband
tobacco activities have now come to an end.
|
|
|
|
|
RJR and JTI entered into a Settlement Agreement and Mutual Release dated as of April 13,
2010, referred to as the SA-MR, pursuant to which the parties have resolved, by mutual
release, JTIs
request for indemnification of the claims referenced in the four preceding paragraphs and, among other things, (1)
RJR Tobacco has agreed to give up its reservation of rights with respect to all moneys
already advanced to JTI for certain attorneys fees, expenses and costs in the criminal
proceedings and to pay for any additional fees, expenses and costs of like kind incurred in
those proceedings up to a specified date; (2) JTI has paid for all Canadian Goods and
Services Taxes incurred to date and has agreed to pay for all such taxes incurred in the
future in connection with the foregoing attorney services already provided or to be provided
in the criminal proceedings; (3) the parties have agreed to split evenly the payment of
certain other attorneys fees already incurred in connection with the Canadian matters; and
(4) the parties have resolved other issues related to the preceding matters. |
|
|
|
|
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 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 had asserted that they could make the same tax and related
claims against RJR and certain of its subsidiaries, including RJR Tobacco. |
|
|
|
|
Effective April 13, 2010, RJR Tobacco entered into the Comprehensive Agreement
with the Canadian federal, provincial and territorial governments, resolving a variety
of civil claims related to cigarette smuggling in Canada during the period 1985 through
1999. The Comprehensive Agreement covers all civil claims related to the movement of
contraband tobacco products in Canada during the period 1985 through 1999 that the
governments have asserted or could assert against RJR Tobacco and its affiliates.
RJR Tobacco has paid the governments a total of Cdn $325 million. Should RJR Tobacco
or its affiliates decide in the future to sell tobacco products in Canada, they have
also agreed to adopt packaging, marking and other measures that will assist the Canadian
governments in their efforts to combat the movement of contraband tobacco products in Canada. |
|
|
|
|
Pursuant to the SA-MR, JTIs indemnification claims with respect to the
matters described in the three preceding paragraphs also have been resolved by mutual release. |
|
|
|
|
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 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. |
45
Notes to Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements (Unaudited) (Continued)
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
|
|
By letter dated February 2, 2010, JTI stated that it would be seeking indemnification
under the 1999 Purchase Agreement for any damages it may incur in connection with an
investigation commenced in January 2010 by the Canada Revenue Agency, referred to as CRA,
regarding interest deductions that JTI-MC took on its income tax returns for the period
2005-2008 while it was in the CCAA Proceedings. |
Although RJR and RJR Tobacco recognize that, under certain circumstances, they may have other
unresolved indemnification obligations to JTI under the 1999 Purchase Agreement, RJR and RJR
Tobacco disagree with JTI as to what circumstances relating to any of such matters may give rise to
any indemnification obligation by RJR and RJR Tobacco and the nature and extent of any such
obligation. RJR and RJR Tobacco have conveyed their position to JTI, and the parties have agreed to
resolve their differences at a later 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 $2 million during the first three months of 2010 and $3 million during the first
three months of 2009, for funds to be reimbursed to JTI for costs and expenses arising out of the
Canadian litigation.
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. With the termination of the criminal
proceedings, the Canadian government also has confirmed that the subpoena served
46
Notes to Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements (Unaudited) (Continued)
on RAI on May 15, 2007 pursuant to the Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty between the United
States and Canada will be withdrawn and that continued compliance is no longer necessary.
See note 5 for additional information related to the Comprehensive Agreement and the plea
agreement in connection with certain Canadian matters.
European Community. On October 30, 2002, the European Community and ten of its member states
filed a complaint in the EDNY against RJR, RJR Tobacco and several currently and formerly related
companies. The complaint contains many of the same or similar allegations found in an earlier
complaint, now dismissed, filed in August 2001 and also alleges that the defendants, together with
certain identified and unidentified persons, engaged in money laundering and other conduct
violating civil RICO and a variety of common laws. The complaint also alleges that the defendants
manufactured cigarettes that were eventually sold in Iraq in violation of U.S. sanctions. The
plaintiffs seek compensatory, punitive and treble damages among other types of relief. This matter
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 R. J. Reynolds
Global Products, Inc., referred to as GPI, as defendants. The allegations contained in the second
amended complaint are in most respects either identical or similar to those found in the prior
complaint, but now add new allegations primarily regarding the activities of RAI, RJR Tobacco and
GPI following the B&W business combination. Pursuant to a stipulation and order, the defendants
filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiffs second amended complaint on February 15, 2010. Oral
argument of the motion is scheduled for May 19, 2010.
Star Patent Infringement. 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 are the subject of 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 November 10,
2009, Star filed responses in the reexaminations. The examiner has not responded to these filings.
47
Notes to Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements (Unaudited) (Continued)
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 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. Stars request for a 30-day extension of time was granted, and its opening appeal brief
is scheduled to be filed on May 5, 2010. RJR Tobacco anticipates seeking a 45-day extension of
time for its answering brief, which would make its answering brief due on July 29, 2010. Assuming
no additional extensions, Stars reply brief would then be due on August 12, 2010.
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.
Other Matters. 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 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. Certain defendants responded to the plaintiffs filings on October 19, 2009, requesting
that the plaintiffs fourth amended complaint not be permitted to be filed or that it should be
dismissed with prejudice.
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.
48
Notes to Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements (Unaudited) (Continued)
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 March 31, 2010, American Snuff Co. was a defendant in six actions brought by individual
plaintiffs in West Virginia state court seeking damages in connection with personal injuries
allegedly sustained as a result of the usage of American Snuff Co.s smokeless tobacco products.
These actions are pending before the same West Virginia court as the 659 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, American Snuff Co. is a
defendant in Vassallo v. United States Tobacco Company, pending in the Eleventh Circuit Court in
Miami-Dade County, Florida. The individual plaintiff alleges that he sustained personal injuries,
including addiction and cancer, as a result of his use of smokeless tobacco products, allegedly
including products manufactured by American Snuff Co. The plaintiff seeks unspecified compensatory
and consequential damages in an amount greater than $15,000. There is 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, American Snuff Co.
and
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. American Snuff Co. 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.
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 $270 million.
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.
49
Notes to Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements (Unaudited) (Continued)
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 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. The plaintiff alleged violations
50
Notes to Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements (Unaudited) (Continued)
of the Fair Labor Standards Act, referred to as FLSA. She asserted that the company had failed
to keep accurate records of all hours worked by RJR Tobaccos employees and failed to pay wages and
overtime compensation to non-exempt retail representatives.
Subsequently, two other cases alleging violations of the FLSA and certain state law
wage-and-hour laws were filed against RJR Tobacco: 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 were transferred to the Missouri court and consolidated
with the Marshall case. The plaintiffs in the Dinino and Radcliffe matters failed to move for class
certification on the state law claims.
At one time, the total number of retail representatives (including the named plaintiffs and
various opt-in plaintiffs) participating in the consolidated cases was 469. Stipulated dismissals
have been entered for 75 of the opt-in plaintiffs, however, and the number of individuals
participating in the lawsuit is currently 394.
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, for interlocutory appeal. Thereafter, fact discovery was completed in the case.
On March 2, 2010, the parties engaged in mediation and reached a settlement agreement in
principle of this matter for a non-material amount. The parties have agreed to a tentative term
sheet as part of the settlement, and are in process of finalizing formal settlement papers.
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 |
51
Notes to Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements (Unaudited) (Continued)
|
|
|
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 Canadian Matters, RJR Tobacco has received claims for indemnification from JTI, and several of these have been resolved pursuant to the SA - MR. Although RJR
and RJR Tobacco recognize that, under certain circumstances, they may have other unresolved indemnification
obligations to JTI under the 1999 Purchase Agreement, RJR and RJR Tobacco disagree what
circumstances described in such claims give rise to any indemnification obligations by RJR and RJR
Tobacco and the nature and extent of any such obligation. RJR and RJR Tobacco have conveyed their position to JTI, and the parties have agreed to
resolve their differences at a later date.
RJR Tobacco, Santa Fe, American Snuff Co. 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, American Snuff Co. 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.
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.
Note 10 Shareholders Equity
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accumulated |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other |
|
|
Total |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Common |
|
|
Paid-In |
|
|
Accumulated |
|
|
Comprehensive |
|
|
Shareholders |
|
|
Comprehensive |
|
|
|
Stock |
|
|
Capital |
|
|
Deficit |
|
|
Loss |
|
|
Equity |
|
|
Income |
|
Balance as of December 31,
2009 |
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
8,498 |
|
|
$ |
(579 |
) |
|
$ |
(1,421 |
) |
|
$ |
6,498 |
|
|
|
|
|
Net income |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
82 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
82 |
|
|
$ |
82 |
|
Retirement benefits,
includes $18 million tax
benefit |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
49 |
|
|
|
49 |
|
|
|
49 |
|
Unrealized gain on
long-term investments, net
of $2 million tax expense |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
2 |
|
Cumulative translation
adjustment, net of $8
million tax benefit |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(11 |
) |
|
|
(11 |
) |
|
|
(11 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total comprehensive income |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
122 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dividends $0.90 per share |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(264 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(264 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Common stock repurchased |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(5 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(5 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Equity incentive award plan
and stock-based
compensation |
|
|
|
|
|
|
8 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
8 |
|
|
|
|
|
Excess tax benefit on
stock-based compensation
plans |
|
|
|
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance as of March 31, 2010 |
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
8,503 |
|
|
$ |
(761 |
) |
|
$ |
(1,381 |
) |
|
$ |
6,361 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Due to RAIs incorporation in North Carolina, which does not recognize treasury shares,
the shares repurchased are cancelled at the time of repurchase. During the first three months of
2010, RAI purchased 88,748 shares that were forfeited with respect to tax liabilities associated
with restricted stock vesting under the LTIP, a plan which expired in 2009 and was replaced by the
Reynolds American Inc. 2009 Omnibus Incentive Compensation Plan, referred to as the Omnibus Plan.
On February 2, 2010, RAIs board of directors declared a quarterly cash dividend of $0.90 per
common share, or $3.60 on an annualized basis, to shareholders of record as of March 10, 2010.
Note 11 Stock Plans
In February 2010, the board of directors of RAI approved a grant, to key employees of RAI and
its subsidiaries, of nonvested restricted stock units under the Omnibus Plan, effective March 1,
2010. The 990,083 restricted stock units generally will vest on March 1, 2013. Upon settlement,
each grantee will receive a number of shares of RAIs
52
Notes to Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements (Unaudited) (Continued)
common stock equal to the product of the number of vested 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, 2013.
As an equity-based grant, compensation expense relating to the 2010 Omnibus Plan grant will
take into account the vesting period lapsed and will be calculated based on the per share closing
price of RAI common stock on the date of grant, or $53.24. Dividends paid on shares of RAI common
stock will accumulate on the restricted stock units and will be paid to the grantee on the vesting
date. If RAI fails to pay its shareholders cumulative dividends of at least $10.80 per share for
the three-year performance period ending December 31, 2013, 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%.
Note 12 Segment Information
RAIs reportable operating segments are RJR Tobacco and American Snuff. The RJR Tobacco
segment consists of the primary operations of R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company. The American Snuff
segment consists of the primary operations of American Snuff Co. and Lane. RAIs wholly owned
subsidiaries, 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. Certain of 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, DORAL and KOOL were five of the ten best-selling brands of cigarettes in the United
States as of March 31, 2010. Those brands, and its other brands, including SALEM, MISTY and CAPRI,
are manufactured in a variety of styles and marketed in the United States. As part of its total
tobacco strategy, RJR Tobacco also offers two types of smoke-free tobacco products, CAMEL Snus and
CAMEL Dissolvables. RJR Tobacco also manages contract manufacturing of cigarette and tobacco
products through arrangements with BAT affiliates and manages the export of tobacco products to
certain U.S. territories, U.S. duty-free shops and U.S. overseas military bases.
RAIs other reportable operating segment, American Snuff, is the second largest smokeless
tobacco products manufacturer in the United States. American Snuffs primary brands include its
largest-selling moist snuff brands, GRIZZLY and KODIAK, as well as CAMEL Dip, a premium moist
snuff. American Snuffs other products include 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. The financial position and results of operations of
this operating segment do not meet the materiality criteria to be reportable.
Intersegment revenues and items below the operating income line of the condensed consolidated
statements of income (unaudited) are not presented by segment, since they are excluded from the measure of
segment profitability reviewed by RAIs chief operating decision maker. Additionally, information
about total assets by segment is not reviewed by RAIs chief operating decision maker and therefore
is not disclosed.
53
Notes to Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements (Unaudited) (Continued)
Segment Data:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For the Three Months |
|
|
|
Ended March 31, |
|
|
|
2010 |
|
|
2009 |
|
Net sales: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
RJR Tobacco |
|
$ |
1,720 |
|
|
$ |
1,671 |
|
American Snuff |
|
|
161 |
|
|
|
166 |
|
All Other |
|
|
105 |
|
|
|
84 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Consolidated net sales |
|
$ |
1,986 |
|
|
$ |
1,921 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating income: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
RJR Tobacco |
|
$ |
470 |
|
|
$ |
82 |
|
American Snuff |
|
|
84 |
|
|
|
8 |
|
All Other |
|
|
30 |
|
|
|
24 |
|
Corporate expense |
|
|
(14 |
) |
|
|
(17 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Consolidated operating income |
|
$ |
570 |
|
|
$ |
97 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reconciliation to income from continuing operations
before income taxes: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating income |
|
$ |
570 |
|
|
$ |
97 |
|
Interest and debt expense |
|
|
60 |
|
|
|
66 |
|
Interest income |
|
|
(4 |
) |
|
|
(5 |
) |
Other expense, net |
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
19 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income from continuing operations before income taxes |
|
$ |
512 |
|
|
$ |
17 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Note 13 Related Party Transactions
RAIs operating subsidiaries engage in transactions with affiliates of BAT. The following is a
summary of balances and transactions with such BAT affiliates.
Balances:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
March 31, |
|
December 31, |
|
|
2010 |
|
2009 |
Accounts receivable |
|
$ |
72 |
|
|
$ |
96 |
|
Accounts payable |
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
3 |
|
Deferred revenue |
|
|
37 |
|
|
|
57 |
|
Transactions for the three months ended March 31:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2010 |
|
2009 |
Net sales |
|
$ |
128 |
|
|
$ |
89 |
|
RAIs operating subsidiaries sell contract-manufactured cigarettes, processed strip leaf, pipe
tobacco and little cigars to BAT affiliates. Pending the outcome of
on-going negotiations between parties, during 2010, pricing for
contract manufactured cigarettes will remain the same as the pricing
that was in effect during 2009 (pricing equal to B&Ws 2004 forecasted costs plus 10%, adjusted for inflation). Net sales to BAT
affiliates, primarily cigarettes, represented approximately 6.0% of RAIs total net sales during
the three months ended March 31, 2010.
RJR Tobacco recorded deferred sales revenue relating to leaf sold to BAT affiliates that had
not been delivered as of the end of the respective quarter, given that RJR Tobacco has a legal
right to bill the BAT affiliates. Leaf sales revenue to BAT affiliates is recognized when the
product will be shipped to the customer.
RJR Tobacco recorded in selling, general and administrative expenses, funds to indemnify B&W
and its affiliates for costs and expenses related to tobacco-related litigation in the United
States. For additional information relating to this indemnification, see note 9.
54
Notes to Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements (Unaudited) (Continued)
Note 14 RAI Guaranteed, Unsecured Notes Condensed Consolidating Financial Statements
The following condensed consolidating financial statements have been prepared pursuant to Rule
3-10 of Regulation S-X, relating to the guaranties of RAIs $4.3 billion unsecured 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, American Snuff Co., Rosswil, LLC, 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.
Condensed Consolidating Statements of Income
(Dollars in Millions)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Parent |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Non- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Issuer |
|
|
Guarantors |
|
|
Guarantors |
|
|
Eliminations |
|
|
Consolidated |
|
For the Three Months Ended March 31, 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net sales |
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
1,851 |
|
|
$ |
38 |
|
|
$ |
(31 |
) |
|
$ |
1,858 |
|
Net sales, related party |
|
|
|
|
|
|
128 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
128 |
|
Cost of products sold |
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,083 |
|
|
|
18 |
|
|
|
(31 |
) |
|
|
1,070 |
|
Selling, general and administrative expenses |
|
|
5 |
|
|
|
318 |
|
|
|
16 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
339 |
|
Amortization expense |
|
|
|
|
|
|
7 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
7 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating income (loss) |
|
|
(5 |
) |
|
|
571 |
|
|
|
4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
570 |
|
Interest and debt expense |
|
|
58 |
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
60 |
|
Interest income |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(2 |
) |
|
|
(2 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(4 |
) |
Intercompany interest (income) expense |
|
|
(31 |
) |
|
|
31 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Intercompany dividend income |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(11 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
11 |
|
|
|
|
|
Other expense, net |
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income (loss) from continuing operations
before income taxes |
|
|
(33 |
) |
|
|
550 |
|
|
|
6 |
|
|
|
(11 |
) |
|
|
512 |
|
Provision for (benefit from) income taxes |
|
|
(11 |
) |
|
|
226 |
|
|
|
(1 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
214 |
|
Equity income (loss) from subsidiaries |
|
|
104 |
|
|
|
(65 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(39 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income from continuing operations |
|
|
82 |
|
|
|
259 |
|
|
|
7 |
|
|
|
(50 |
) |
|
|
298 |
|
Losses from discontinued operations, net of tax |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(142 |
) |
|
|
(74 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(216 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income (loss) |
|
$ |
82 |
|
|
$ |
117 |
|
|
$ |
(67 |
) |
|
$ |
(50 |
) |
|
$ |
82 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For the Three Months Ended March 31, 2009 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net sales |
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
1,830 |
|
|
$ |
40 |
|
|
$ |
(38 |
) |
|
$ |
1,832 |
|
Net sales, related party |
|
|
|
|
|
|
89 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
89 |
|
Cost of products sold |
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,018 |
|
|
|
18 |
|
|
|
(38 |
) |
|
|
998 |
|
Selling, general and administrative expenses |
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
348 |
|
|
|
14 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
365 |
|
Amortization expense |
|
|
|
|
|
|
8 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
8 |
|
Trademark impairment charge |
|
|
|
|
|
|
453 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
453 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating income (loss) |
|
|
(3 |
) |
|
|
92 |
|
|
|
8 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
97 |
|
Interest and debt expense |
|
|
64 |
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
66 |
|
Interest income |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(2 |
) |
|
|
(3 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(5 |
) |
Intercompany interest (income) expense |
|
|
(27 |
) |
|
|
27 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Intercompany dividend income |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(11 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
11 |
|
|
|
|
|
Other expense, net |
|
|
17 |
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
19 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income (loss) before income taxes |
|
|
(57 |
) |
|
|
74 |
|
|
|
11 |
|
|
|
(11 |
) |
|
|
17 |
|
Provision for (benefit from) income taxes |
|
|
(20 |
) |
|
|
28 |
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
9 |
|
Equity income from subsidiaries |
|
|
45 |
|
|
|
10 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(55 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income |
|
$ |
8 |
|
|
$ |
56 |
|
|
$ |
10 |
|
|
$ |
(66 |
) |
|
$ |
8 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
55
Notes to Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements (Unaudited) (Continued)
Condensed Consolidating Statements of Cash Flows
(Dollars in Millions)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Parent |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Non- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Issuer |
|
|
Guarantors |
|
|
Guarantors |
|
|
Eliminations |
|
|
Consolidated |
|
For the Three Months Ended March 31, 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash flows from (used in) operating activities |
|
$ |
63 |
|
|
$ |
795 |
|
|
$ |
(8 |
) |
|
$ |
(10 |
) |
|
$ |
840 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash flows from (used in) investing activities: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Proceeds from settlement of long-term investments |
|
|
|
|
|
|
10 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
10 |
|
Capital expenditures |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(31 |
) |
|
|
(1 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(32 |
) |
Other, net |
|
|
|
|
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3 |
|
Return of intercompany investments |
|
|
140 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(140 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Intercompany notes receivable |
|
|
20 |
|
|
|
11 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(31 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash flows from (used in) investing activities |
|
|
160 |
|
|
|
(7 |
) |
|
|
(1 |
) |
|
|
(171 |
) |
|
|
(19 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash flows from (used in) financing activities: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dividends paid on common stock |
|
|
(262 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(262 |
) |
Other, net |
|
|
(3 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(3 |
) |
Dividends paid on preferred stock |
|
|
(10 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
10 |
|
|
|
|
|
Distribution of equity |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(140 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
140 |
|
|
|
|
|
Intercompany notes payable |
|
|
(11 |
) |
|
|
(20 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
31 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash flows used in financing activities |
|
|
(286 |
) |
|
|
(160 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
181 |
|
|
|
(265 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Effect of exchange rate changes on cash and cash
equivalents |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(7 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(7 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net change in cash and cash equivalents |
|
|
(63 |
) |
|
|
628 |
|
|
|
(16 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
549 |
|
Cash and cash equivalents at beginning of period |
|
|
361 |
|
|
|
2,136 |
|
|
|
226 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,723 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents at end of period |
|
$ |
298 |
|
|
$ |
2,764 |
|
|
$ |
210 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
3,272 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
56
Notes to Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements (Unaudited) (Continued)
Condensed Consolidating Statements of Cash Flows
(Dollars in Millions)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Parent |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Non- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Issuer |
|
|
Guarantors |
|
|
Guarantors |
|
|
Eliminations |
|
|
Consolidated |
|
For the Three Months Ended March 31, 2009 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash flows from operating activities |
|
$ |
15 |
|
|
$ |
856 |
|
|
$ |
3 |
|
|
$ |
(11 |
) |
|
$ |
863 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash flows from (used in) investing activities: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Proceeds from settlement of long-term investments |
|
|
|
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2 |
|
Capital expenditures |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(26 |
) |
|
|
(1 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(27 |
) |
Other, net |
|
|
|
|
|
|
13 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
13 |
|
Intercompany notes receivable |
|
|
20 |
|
|
|
8 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(28 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash flows (used in) from investing activities |
|
|
20 |
|
|
|
(3 |
) |
|
|
(1 |
) |
|
|
(28 |
) |
|
|
(12 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash flows from (used in) financing activities: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dividends paid on common stock |
|
|
(248 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(248 |
) |
Other, net |
|
|
(4 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(4 |
) |
Dividends paid on preferred stock |
|
|
(11 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
11 |
|
|
|
|
|
Intercompany notes payable |
|
|
(8 |
) |
|
|
(20 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
28 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash flows used in financing activities |
|
|
(271 |
) |
|
|
(20 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
39 |
|
|
|
(252 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Effect of exchange rate changes on cash and cash
equivalents |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(8 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(8 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net change in cash and cash equivalents |
|
|
(236 |
) |
|
|
833 |
|
|
|
(6 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
591 |
|
Cash and cash equivalents at beginning of period |
|
|
272 |
|
|
|
2,091 |
|
|
|
215 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,578 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents at end of period |
|
$ |
36 |
|
|
$ |
2,924 |
|
|
$ |
209 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
3,169 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
57
Notes to Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements (Unaudited) (Continued)
Condensed Consolidating Balance Sheets
(Dollars in Millions)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Parent |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Non- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Issuer |
|
|
Guarantors |
|
|
Guarantors |
|
|
Eliminations |
|
|
Consolidated |
|
March 31, 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Assets |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents |
|
$ |
298 |
|
|
$ |
2,764 |
|
|
$ |
210 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
3,272 |
|
Accounts receivable |
|
|
|
|
|
|
96 |
|
|
|
21 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
117 |
|
Accounts receivable, related party |
|
|
|
|
|
|
72 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
72 |
|
Notes receivable |
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
35 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
36 |
|
Other receivables |
|
|
4 |
|
|
|
11 |
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
16 |
|
Inventories |
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,151 |
|
|
|
41 |
|
|
|
(2 |
) |
|
|
1,190 |
|
Deferred income taxes, net |
|
|
12 |
|
|
|
939 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
951 |
|
Prepaid expenses and other |
|
|
4 |
|
|
|
269 |
|
|
|
7 |
|
|
|
(33 |
) |
|
|
247 |
|
Short-term intercompany notes and interest receivable |
|
|
80 |
|
|
|
45 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(125 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Other intercompany receivables |
|
|
109 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
9 |
|
|
|
(118 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total current assets |
|
|
507 |
|
|
|
5,348 |
|
|
|
324 |
|
|
|
(278 |
) |
|
|
5,901 |
|
Property, plant and equipment, net |
|
|
7 |
|
|
|
989 |
|
|
|
28 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,024 |
|
Trademarks and other intangible assets, net |
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,665 |
|
|
|
46 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,711 |
|
Goodwill |
|
|
|
|
|
|
8,166 |
|
|
|
19 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
8,185 |
|
Long-term intercompany notes |
|
|
2,020 |
|
|
|
1,377 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(3,397 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Investment in subsidiaries |
|
|
9,728 |
|
|
|
391 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(10,119 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Other assets and deferred charges |
|
|
295 |
|
|
|
186 |
|
|
|
127 |
|
|
|
(27 |
) |
|
|
581 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total assets |
|
$ |
12,557 |
|
|
$ |
19,122 |
|
|
$ |
544 |
|
|
$ |
(13,821 |
) |
|
$ |
18,402 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Liabilities and shareholders equity |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accounts payable |
|
$ |
1 |
|
|
$ |
106 |
|
|
$ |
7 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
114 |
|
Tobacco settlement accruals |
|
|
|
|
|
|
3,196 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3,196 |
|
Due to related party |
|
|
|
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2 |
|
Deferred revenue, related party |
|
|
|
|
|
|
37 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
37 |
|
Current maturities of long-term debt |
|
|
300 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
300 |
|
Other current liabilities |
|
|
399 |
|
|
|
1,118 |
|
|
|
109 |
|
|
|
(34 |
) |
|
|
1,592 |
|
Short-term intercompany notes and interest payable |
|
|
31 |
|
|
|
80 |
|
|
|
14 |
|
|
|
(125 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Other intercompany payables |
|
|
|
|
|
|
118 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(118 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total current liabilities |
|
|
731 |
|
|
|
4,657 |
|
|
|
130 |
|
|
|
(277 |
) |
|
|
5,241 |
|
Intercompany notes and interest payable |
|
|
1,377 |
|
|
|
2,020 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(3,397 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Long-term debt (less current maturities) |
|
|
4,005 |
|
|
|
122 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4,127 |
|
Deferred income taxes, net |
|
|
|
|
|
|
470 |
|
|
|
11 |
|
|
|
(27 |
) |
|
|
454 |
|
Long-term retirement benefits (less current portion) |
|
|
62 |
|
|
|
1,835 |
|
|
|
16 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,913 |
|
Other noncurrent liabilities |
|
|
21 |
|
|
|
285 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
306 |
|
Shareholders equity |
|
|
6,361 |
|
|
|
9,733 |
|
|
|
387 |
|
|
|
(10,120 |
) |
|
|
6,361 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total liabilities and shareholders equity |
|
$ |
12,557 |
|
|
$ |
19,122 |
|
|
$ |
544 |
|
|
$ |
(13,821 |
) |
|
$ |
18,402 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
58
Notes to Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements (Unaudited) (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 |
|
Accounts receivable |
|
|
|
|
|
|
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 |
|
|
|
315 |
|
|
|
11 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
341 |
|
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 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
59
Notes to Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements (Unaudited) (Continued)
Note 15 RJR Guaranteed, Unsecured Notes Condensed Consolidating Financial Statements
The following condensed consolidating financial statements have been prepared pursuant to Rule
3-10 of Regulation S-X, relating to the guaranties of RJRs $62 million unsecured 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, American Snuff Co. and
Rosswil, LLC that are not Guarantors; and elimination adjustments.
60
Notes to Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements (Unaudited) (Continued)
Condensed Consolidating Statements of Income
(Dollars in Millions)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Parent |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other |
|
|
Non- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Guarantor |
|
|
Issuer |
|
|
Guarantors |
|
|
Guarantors |
|
|
Eliminations |
|
|
Consolidated |
|
For the Three Months Ended March 31,
2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net sales |
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
1,626 |
|
|
$ |
275 |
|
|
$ |
(43 |
) |
|
$ |
1,858 |
|
Net sales, related party |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
126 |
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
128 |
|
Cost of products sold |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,019 |
|
|
|
94 |
|
|
|
(43 |
) |
|
|
1,070 |
|
Selling, general and administrative expenses |
|
|
5 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
265 |
|
|
|
69 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
339 |
|
Amortization expense |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
7 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
7 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating income (loss) |
|
|
(5 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
461 |
|
|
|
114 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
570 |
|
Interest and debt expense |
|
|
58 |
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
60 |
|
Interest income |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1 |
) |
|
|
(3 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(4 |
) |
Intercompany interest (income) expense |
|
|
(31 |
) |
|
|
(1 |
) |
|
|
(10 |
) |
|
|
42 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Intercompany dividend income |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(11 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
11 |
|
|
|
|
|
Other expense, net |
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income (loss) from continuing operations
before income taxes |
|
|
(33 |
) |
|
|
9 |
|
|
|
472 |
|
|
|
75 |
|
|
|
(11 |
) |
|
|
512 |
|
Provision for (benefit from) income taxes |
|
|
(11 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
202 |
|
|
|
23 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
214 |
|
Equity income (loss) from subsidiaries |
|
|
104 |
|
|
|
(24 |
) |
|
|
11 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(91 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income (loss) from continuing operations |
|
|
82 |
|
|
|
(15 |
) |
|
|
281 |
|
|
|
52 |
|
|
|
(102 |
) |
|
|
298 |
|
Losses from discontinued operations, net of tax |
|
|
|
|
|
|
88 |
|
|
|
(230 |
) |
|
|
(74 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(216 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income (loss) |
|
$ |
82 |
|
|
$ |
73 |
|
|
$ |
51 |
|
|
$ |
(22 |
) |
|
$ |
(102 |
) |
|
$ |
82 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For the Three Months Ended March 31, 2009 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net sales |
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
1,625 |
|
|
$ |
267 |
|
|
$ |
(60 |
) |
|
$ |
1,832 |
|
Net sales, related party |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
87 |
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
89 |
|
Cost of products sold |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
961 |
|
|
|
97 |
|
|
|
(60 |
) |
|
|
998 |
|
Selling, general and administrative expenses |
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
296 |
|
|
|
66 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
365 |
|
Amortization expense |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
7 |
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
8 |
|
Trademark impairment charge |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
377 |
|
|
|
76 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
453 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating income (loss) |
|
|
(3 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
71 |
|
|
|
29 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
97 |
|
Interest and debt expense |
|
|
64 |
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
66 |
|
Interest income |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(2 |
) |
|
|
(3 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(5 |
) |
Intercompany interest (income) expense |
|
|
(27 |
) |
|
|
(2 |
) |
|
|
(14 |
) |
|
|
43 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Intercompany dividend income |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(11 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
11 |
|
|
|
|
|
Other expense, net |
|
|
17 |
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
19 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income (loss) before income taxes |
|
|
(57 |
) |
|
|
10 |
|
|
|
86 |
|
|
|
(11 |
) |
|
|
(11 |
) |
|
|
17 |
|
Provision for (benefit from) income taxes |
|
|
(20 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
39 |
|
|
|
(10 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
9 |
|
Equity income from subsidiaries |
|
|
45 |
|
|
|
57 |
|
|
|
9 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(111 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income (loss) |
|
$ |
8 |
|
|
$ |
67 |
|
|
$ |
56 |
|
|
$ |
(1 |
) |
|
$ |
(122 |
) |
|
$ |
8 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
61
Notes to Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements (Unaudited) (Continued)
Condensed Consolidating Statements of Cash Flows
(Dollars in Millions)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Parent |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other |
|
|
Non- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Guarantor |
|
|
Issuer |
|
|
Guarantors |
|
|
Guarantors |
|
|
Eliminations |
|
|
Consolidated |
|
For the Three Months Ended March 31,
2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash flows from operating activities |
|
$ |
63 |
|
|
$ |
124 |
|
|
$ |
774 |
|
|
$ |
4 |
|
|
$ |
(125 |
) |
|
$ |
840 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash flows from (used in) investing
activities: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Proceeds from settlement of long-term
investments |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
10 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
10 |
|
Capital expenditures |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(13 |
) |
|
|
(19 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(32 |
) |
Other, net |
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3 |
|
Return of intercompany investments |
|
|
140 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(140 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Intercompany notes receivable |
|
|
20 |
|
|
|
8 |
|
|
|
11 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(39 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash flows from (used in) investing
activities |
|
|
160 |
|
|
|
9 |
|
|
|
10 |
|
|
|
(19 |
) |
|
|
(179 |
) |
|
|
(19 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash flows from (used in) financing
activities: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dividends paid on common stock |
|
|
(262 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(115 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
115 |
|
|
|
(262 |
) |
Other, net |
|
|
(3 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(3 |
) |
Dividends paid on preferred stock |
|
|
(10 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
10 |
|
|
|
|
|
Distribution of equity |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(140 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
140 |
|
|
|
|
|
Intercompany notes payable |
|
|
(11 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(28 |
) |
|
|
39 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash flows used in financing activities |
|
|
(286 |
) |
|
|
(140 |
) |
|
|
(115 |
) |
|
|
(28 |
) |
|
|
304 |
|
|
|
(265 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Effect of exchange rate changes on cash and
cash equivalents |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(7 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(7 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net change in cash and cash equivalents |
|
|
(63 |
) |
|
|
(7 |
) |
|
|
669 |
|
|
|
(50 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
549 |
|
Cash and cash equivalents at beginning of
period |
|
|
361 |
|
|
|
24 |
|
|
|
2,001 |
|
|
|
337 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,723 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents at end of period |
|
$ |
298 |
|
|
$ |
17 |
|
|
$ |
2,670 |
|
|
$ |
287 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
3,272 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
62
Notes to Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements (Unaudited) (Continued)
Condensed Consolidating Statements of Cash Flows
(Dollars in Millions)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Parent |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other |
|
|
Non- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Guarantor |
|
|
Issuer |
|
|
Guarantors |
|
|
Guarantors |
|
|
Eliminations |
|
|
Consolidated |
|
For the Three Months Ended March 31,
2009 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash flows from operating activities |
|
$ |
15 |
|
|
$ |
34 |
|
|
$ |
817 |
|
|
$ |
8 |
|
|
$ |
(11 |
) |
|
$ |
863 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash flows from (used in) investing
activities: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Proceeds from settlement of long-term
investments |
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2 |
|
Capital expenditures |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(8 |
) |
|
|
(19 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(27 |
) |
Other, net |
|
|
|
|
|
|
4 |
|
|
|
8 |
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
13 |
|
Intercompany notes receivable |
|
|
20 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
8 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(28 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash flows from (used in) investing
activities |
|
|
20 |
|
|
|
5 |
|
|
|
9 |
|
|
|
(18 |
) |
|
|
(28 |
) |
|
|
(12 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash flows from (used in) financing
activities: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dividends paid on common stock |
|
|
(248 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(248 |
) |
Other, net |
|
|
(4 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(4 |
) |
Dividends paid on preferred stock |
|
|
(11 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
11 |
|
|
|
|
|
Intercompany notes payable |
|
|
(8 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(20 |
) |
|
|
28 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash flows used in financing activities |
|
|
(271 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(20 |
) |
|
|
39 |
|
|
|
(252 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Effect of exchange rate changes on cash and
cash equivalents |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(8 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(8 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net change in cash and cash equivalents |
|
|
(236 |
) |
|
|
39 |
|
|
|
826 |
|
|
|
(38 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
591 |
|
Cash and cash equivalents at beginning of
period |
|
|
272 |
|
|
|
6 |
|
|
|
1,977 |
|
|
|
323 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,578 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents at end of period |
|
$ |
36 |
|
|
$ |
45 |
|
|
$ |
2,803 |
|
|
$ |
285 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
3,169 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
63
Notes to Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements (Unaudited) (Continued)
Condensed Consolidating Balance Sheets
(Dollars in Millions)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Parent |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other |
|
|
Non- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Guarantor |
|
|
Issuer |
|
|
Guarantors |
|
|
Guarantors |
|
|
Eliminations |
|
|
Consolidated |
|
March 31, 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Assets |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents |
|
$ |
298 |
|
|
$ |
17 |
|
|
$ |
2,670 |
|
|
$ |
287 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
3,272 |
|
Accounts receivable |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
49 |
|
|
|
68 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
117 |
|
Accounts receivable, related party |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
71 |
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
72 |
|
Notes receivable |
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
35 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
36 |
|
Other receivables |
|
|
4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
7 |
|
|
|
5 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
16 |
|
Inventories |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
729 |
|
|
|
463 |
|
|
|
(2 |
) |
|
|
1,190 |
|
Deferred income taxes, net |
|
|
12 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
909 |
|
|
|
30 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
951 |
|
Prepaid expenses and other |
|
|
4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
250 |
|
|
|
27 |
|
|
|
(34 |
) |
|
|
247 |
|
Short-term intercompany notes and interest
receivable |
|
|
80 |
|
|
|
31 |
|
|
|
172 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(283 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Other intercompany receivables |
|
|
109 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
11 |
|
|
|
(120 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total current assets |
|
|
507 |
|
|
|
49 |
|
|
|
4,857 |
|
|
|
927 |
|
|
|
(439 |
) |
|
|
5,901 |
|
Property, plant and equipment, net |
|
|
7 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
767 |
|
|
|
250 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,024 |
|
Trademarks and other intangible assets, net |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,346 |
|
|
|
1,365 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,711 |
|
Goodwill |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5,303 |
|
|
|
2,882 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
8,185 |
|
Long-term intercompany notes |
|
|
2,020 |
|
|
|
182 |
|
|
|
1,377 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(3,579 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Investment in subsidiaries |
|
|
9,728 |
|
|
|
7,773 |
|
|
|
441 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(17,942 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Other assets and deferred charges |
|
|
295 |
|
|
|
58 |
|
|
|
142 |
|
|
|
127 |
|
|
|
(41 |
) |
|
|
581 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total assets |
|
$ |
12,557 |
|
|
$ |
8,062 |
|
|
$ |
14,233 |
|
|
$ |
5,551 |
|
|
$ |
(22,001 |
) |
|
$ |
18,402 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Liabilities and shareholders equity |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accounts payable |
|
$ |
1 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
93 |
|
|
$ |
20 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
114 |
|
Tobacco settlement accruals |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3,141 |
|
|
|
55 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3,196 |
|
Due to related party |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2 |
|
Deferred revenue, related party |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
37 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
37 |
|
Current maturities on long-term debt |
|
|
300 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
300 |
|
Other current liabilities |
|
|
399 |
|
|
|
10 |
|
|
|
1,031 |
|
|
|
186 |
|
|
|
(34 |
) |
|
|
1,592 |
|
Short-term intercompany notes and interest
payable |
|
|
31 |
|
|
|
131 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
121 |
|
|
|
(283 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Other intercompany payables |
|
|
|
|
|
|
41 |
|
|
|
79 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(120 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total current liabilities |
|
|
731 |
|
|
|
182 |
|
|
|
4,383 |
|
|
|
382 |
|
|
|
(437 |
) |
|
|
5,241 |
|
Intercompany notes and interest payable |
|
|
1,377 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,202 |
|
|
|
(3,579 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Long-term debt (less current maturities) |
|
|
4,005 |
|
|
|
122 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4,127 |
|
Deferred income taxes, net |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
493 |
|
|
|
(41 |
) |
|
|
454 |
|
Long-term retirement benefits (less
current portion) |
|
|
62 |
|
|
|
28 |
|
|
|
1,731 |
|
|
|
92 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,913 |
|
Other noncurrent liabilities |
|
|
21 |
|
|
|
13 |
|
|
|
270 |
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
306 |
|
Shareholders equity |
|
|
6,361 |
|
|
|
7,717 |
|
|
|
7,847 |
|
|
|
2,380 |
|
|
|
(17,944 |
) |
|
|
6,361 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total liabilities and shareholders equity |
|
$ |
12,557 |
|
|
$ |
8,062 |
|
|
$ |
14,233 |
|
|
$ |
5,551 |
|
|
$ |
(22,001 |
) |
|
$ |
18,402 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
64
Notes to Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements (Unaudited) (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 |
|
Accounts receivable |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
47 |
|
|
|
62 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
109 |
|
Accounts receivable, related party |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
96 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
96 |
|
Notes 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 |
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
297 |
|
|
|
28 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
341 |
|
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 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
65
Item 2. 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
compares the first quarter of 2010 with the first quarter of 2009. 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 financial information included in the condensed consolidated financial
statements (unaudited).
Overview and Business Initiatives
RAIs reportable operating segments are RJR Tobacco and American Snuff. The RJR Tobacco
segment consists of the primary operations of R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company. The American Snuff
segment consists of the primary operations of American Snuff Co. and Lane. RAIs wholly owned
subsidiaries, Santa Fe and Niconovum AB, among other RAI subsidiaries, are included in All Other.
Certain of 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, DORAL and KOOL were five of the ten best-selling brands of cigarettes in the United
States as of March 31, 2010. 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
and manages the export of tobacco products to certain U.S. territories, U.S. duty-free shops and
U.S. overseas military bases.
RAIs other reportable operating segment, American Snuff, is the second largest smokeless
tobacco products manufacturer in the United States. American Snuffs primary brands include its
largest selling moist snuff brands, GRIZZLY and KODIAK. American Snuff expanded the sale of CAMEL
Dip, a premium moist snuff, into additional lead markets during the first quarter of 2010.
American Snuffs other products include WINCHESTER and CAPTAIN BLACK little cigars, and BUGLER
roll-your-own tobacco.
In order to improve efficiencies, increase speed to market and provide stronger retail
support, the field trade-marketing group at RJR Tobacco will expand during 2010 to provide services
to American Snuff through a services agreement.
Santa Fe manufactures and markets cigarettes and other tobacco products under the NATURAL
AMERICAN SPIRIT brand and manages RJR Tobaccos super premium cigarette brands, DUNHILL and STATE
EXPRESS 555, which are licensed from BAT.
RJR Tobacco
RJR Tobacco primarily conducts business in the highly competitive U.S. cigarette market. 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. 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. Trade inventory adjustments may result in short-term changes in demand for RJR Tobaccos
products when wholesale and retail tobacco distributors adjust the timing of their purchases of
product to manage their inventory levels. RJR Tobacco believes it is not appropriate for it to
speculate on other external factors that may impact the purchasing decisions of the wholesale and
retail tobacco distributors.
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
66
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 as RJR Tobacco continues to de-emphasize private-label brands. 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. As part of its total tobacco strategy, RJR Tobacco also offers two types of
smoke-free tobacco products, CAMEL Snus and CAMEL Dissolvables. CAMEL Snus 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.
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.
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.
American Snuff
American Snuff 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 nearly 9% in
the first three months of 2010 and have grown at an average rate of approximately 6% per year over
the last five years, driven by the accelerated growth of price-value brands. The growth in the
moist snuff volumes is higher in 2010 than the prior year due to competitive promotional strategies
during 2010, in addition to trade inventory reductions during the first quarter of 2009 in response
to the federal excise tax increase effective April 1, 2009. 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.
American Snuff 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.
Critical Accounting Policies and Estimates
GAAP requires estimates and assumptions to be made that affect the reported amounts in RAIs
condensed consolidated financial statements (unaudited) 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.
67
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 note 9 to condensed consolidated financial statements (unaudited), RJR
Tobacco, American Snuff Co. 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.
RAI and its subsidiaries believe that they have valid bases for appeal of adverse verdicts
against them and believe they have valid defenses to all actions and 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 American
Snuff Co., when viewed on an individual basis, is not probable or estimable. As of March 31, 2010,
RJR Tobacco had liabilities totaling $325 million related to non-smoking and health litigation, of
which $320 million was recorded during the first quarter of 2010 related to RJR Tobaccos
Comprehensive Agreement with the Canadian federal, provincial and territorial governments. As of
March 31, 2010, Northern Brands had liabilities of $74 million related to a plea agreement with the
Ministry of the Attorney General of Ontario. A comprehensive discussion of the Canadian matters is
set forth in note 9 to condensed consolidated financial statements (unaudited) under Litigation
Affecting the Cigarette Industry Other Litigation and
Developments-Canadian Matters, and additional details regarding the settlement are set forth in note 5 to
condensed consolidated financial statements (unaudited).
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, American Snuff Co. 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
note 9 to condensed consolidated financial statements (unaudited).
State Settlement Agreements
RJR Tobacco, Santa Fe and Lane are participants in the MSA, and RJR Tobacco is a participant
in the 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. American Snuff Co. is not a participant 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 note 9 to condensed consolidated financial statements (unaudited).
Intangible Assets
Intangible assets include goodwill, trademarks and other intangible assets. 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
68
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 tested
for impairment annually, in the fourth quarter. All trademarks and other intangible assets are
tested more frequently if events and circumstances indicate that the asset might be impaired.
Fair Value Measurement
RAI determines fair value of assets and liabilities using a fair value hierarchy that
distinguishes between market participant assumptions based on market data obtained from
sources independent of the reporting entity, and the reporting entitys own assumptions about
market participant assumptions based on the best information available in the
circumstances and expands disclosure about fair value measurements.
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
RAI reviews investments for impairment on a quarterly basis. For those investments in an
inactive market, RAI uses assumptions about future cash flows and risk-adjusted discount rates to
determine fair value.
As of March 31, 2010, RAI held investments primarily in auction rate securities, a
mortgage-backed security and a marketable equity security. Adverse changes in financial markets
caused certain auction rate securities and the mortgage-backed security to revalue lower than
carrying value and become less liquid. Auction rate securities and the mortgage-backed security
will not become liquid until a successful auction occurs or a buyer is found.
These investments will be evaluated on a quarterly basis to determine if it is probable that
RAI will realize some portion of the unrealized loss. For those securities that 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, RAI recognizes the credit loss component of an other-than-temporary impairment
in earnings and recognizes the noncredit component in other comprehensive loss. For additional
information relating to these investments, see note 2 to condensed consolidated financial
statements (unaudited).
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.
69
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, based on projections of future
income, it is more likely than not that the deferred tax assets recorded in RAIs condensed consolidated
balance sheets (unaudited) 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 Guidance
For additional information relating to recently adopted accounting pronouncements, see note 1
to condensed consolidated financial statements (unaudited).
Results of Operations
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For the Three Months Ended March 31, |
|
|
|
2010 |
|
|
2009 |
|
|
%
Change |
|
Net sales:(1) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
RJR Tobacco |
|
$ |
1,720 |
|
|
$ |
1,671 |
|
|
|
2.9 |
% |
American Snuff |
|
|
161 |
|
|
|
166 |
|
|
|
(3.0 |
)% |
All other |
|
|
105 |
|
|
|
84 |
|
|
|
25.0 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net sales |
|
|
1,986 |
|
|
|
1,921 |
|
|
|
3.4 |
% |
Cost of products sold(1)(2) |
|
|
1,070 |
|
|
|
998 |
|
|
|
7.2 |
% |
Selling, general and administrative expenses |
|
|
339 |
|
|
|
365 |
|
|
|
(7.1 |
)% |
Amortization expense |
|
|
7 |
|
|
|
8 |
|
|
|
(12.5 |
)% |
Trademark impairment charge |
|
|
|
|
|
|
453 |
|
|
NM |
(3) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating income: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
RJR Tobacco |
|
|
470 |
|
|
|
82 |
|
|
NM |
(3) |
American Snuff |
|
|
84 |
|
|
|
8 |
|
|
NM |
(3) |
All other |
|
|
30 |
|
|
|
24 |
|
|
|
25.0 |
% |
Corporate expense |
|
|
(14 |
) |
|
|
(17 |
) |
|
|
(17.6 |
)% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating income |
|
$ |
570 |
|
|
$ |
97 |
|
|
NM |
(3) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Excludes excise taxes of: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2010 |
|
|
2009 |
|
RJR Tobacco |
|
$ |
915 |
|
|
$ |
362 |
|
American Snuff |
|
|
27 |
|
|
|
5 |
|
All other |
|
|
75 |
|
|
|
43 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
1,017 |
|
|
$ |
410 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(2) |
|
See below for further information related to the State
Settlement Agreements, federal tobacco buyout expense and
FDA expense included in cost of products sold. |
|
(3) |
|
Percentage change not meaningful. |
70
RJR Tobacco
Net Sales
Domestic cigarette shipment volume, in billions of units for RJR Tobacco and the industry,
were as follows(1):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For the Three Months Ended |
|
|
March 31, |
|
|
2010 |
|
2009 |
|
%
Change |
Growth brands: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CAMEL excluding non-filter |
|
|
4.7 |
|
|
|
5.0 |
|
|
|
(5.3 |
)% |
PALL MALL |
|
|
4.4 |
|
|
|
1.9 |
|
|
|
134.3 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
9.1 |
|
|
|
6.9 |
|
|
|
32.9 |
% |
Support brands |
|
|
7.7 |
|
|
|
9.7 |
|
|
|
(21.0 |
)% |
Non-support brands |
|
|
1.4 |
|
|
|
2.1 |
|
|
|
(33.1 |
)% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total domestic |
|
|
18.2 |
|
|
|
18.7 |
|
|
|
(2.5 |
)% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total premium |
|
|
10.3 |
|
|
|
11.7 |
|
|
|
(11.8 |
)% |
Total value |
|
|
7.9 |
|
|
|
7.0 |
|
|
|
13.2 |
% |
Premium/total mix |
|
|
56.7 |
% |
|
|
62.7 |
% |
|
|
|
|
Industry(2): |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Premium |
|
|
51.0 |
|
|
|
51.7 |
|
|
|
(1.5 |
)% |
Value |
|
|
21.1 |
|
|
|
22.1 |
|
|
|
(4.6 |
)% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total domestic |
|
|
72.0 |
|
|
|
73.8 |
|
|
|
(2.4 |
)% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Premium/total mix |
|
|
70.7 |
% |
|
|
70.1 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(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 Management Science Associates,
Inc., referred to as MSAi. Prior year amounts have been
restated to reflect 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 Tobaccos net sales for the quarter ended March 31, 2010, increased $49 million from the
prior-year quarter, driven by higher pricing, offset by $82 million attributable to lower cigarette
volume and an unfavorable premium-to-value mix. Industry cigarette shipment volume for the first
quarter of 2010 was down 2.4% compared with the prior-year period. During the first quarter of 2009,
there were significant trade inventory reductions prior to the federal excise tax increase.
Adjusting for this, RJR Tobaccos volume decline during the first quarter of 2010, would have been 4.8% compared with an industry
decline of 7.3%.
The shares of RJR Tobaccos brands as a percentage of total share of U.S. retail cigarette
sales according to Information Resources Inc., referred to as IRI/Capstone(1), were as
follows(2):
71
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For the Three Months Ended |
|
|
March 31, |
|
December 31, |
|
Share Point |
|
March 31, |
|
Share Point |
|
|
2010 |
|
2009 |
|
Change |
|
2009 |
|
Change |
Growth brands: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CAMEL excluding non-filter |
|
|
7.1 |
% |
|
|
7.4 |
% |
|
|
(0.3 |
) |
|
|
7.6 |
% |
|
|
(0.5 |
) |
PALL MALL |
|
|
6.5 |
% |
|
|
6.0 |
% |
|
|
0.5 |
|
|
|
2.9 |
% |
|
|
3.6 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total growth brands |
|
|
13.6 |
% |
|
|
13.4 |
% |
|
|
0.2 |
|
|
|
10.5 |
% |
|
|
3.1 |
|
Support brands |
|
|
11.9 |
% |
|
|
12.4 |
% |
|
|
(0.5 |
) |
|
|
14.1 |
% |
|
|
(2.2 |
) |
Non-support brands |
|
|
2.4 |
% |
|
|
2.7 |
% |
|
|
(0.3 |
) |
|
|
3.1 |
% |
|
|
(0.7 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total domestic |
|
|
27.9 |
% |
|
|
28.5 |
% |
|
|
(0.6 |
) |
|
|
27.7 |
% |
|
|
0.2 |
|
|
|
|
(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
data 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. |
The retail share of market of CAMELs filtered styles at 7.1 share points in the first quarter
of 2010 was lower than the first quarter of 2009. CAMELs cigarette market share was negatively
impacted by competitive promotional activity, combined with continued pressure on premium-priced
products. CAMEL Crush and the expanded use of the capsule technology to CAMELs core menthol
styles, allow adult smokers to choose the level of menthol flavor on demand.
CAMEL Snus, a smoke-free tobacco product, captured market share of 0.2 percent on a cigarette
equivalent basis that assumes a can of snus is equal to a pack of cigarettes. CAMEL Snus was
launched nationally in 2009 and continues to bring awareness to the new smoke free category.
PALL MALLs market share increased 3.6 share points in the first quarter of 2010 compared with
the first quarter of 2009. 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.
The combined share of market of RJR Tobaccos growth brands during the first three months of
2010 showed a strong improvement of 3.1 share points over the same period in 2009. RJR Tobaccos
total cigarette market share has been stable for the past few years, even as RJR Tobacco has
discontinued many of its non-core cigarette styles and de-emphasizes low-margin private-label
brands. These actions are consistent with RJR Tobaccos strategy of focusing on key brands.
Operating Income
RJR Tobaccos operating income for the quarter ended March 31, 2010, increased $388 million to
$470 million from $82 million for the quarter ended March 31, 2009. RJR Tobaccos operating income
for the three months ended March 31, 2010, was favorably impacted by higher cigarette pricing,
lower marketing spending and continued productivity gains. These gains were partially offset by
lower cigarette volume, an
unfavorable premium-to-value mix and higher FDA user fees.
During the first quarter of 2009, RJR Tobacco recorded a trademark impairment charge of $377
million related to the forecasted sales impact due to the increase in the federal excise tax.
RJR Tobaccos expense under the State Settlement Agreements, federal tobacco buyout expenses
and FDA user fees, included in cost of products sold, are detailed in the schedule below:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For the Three Months Ended |
|
|
|
March 31, |
|
|
|
2010 |
|
|
2009 |
|
Settlements |
|
$ |
574 |
|
|
$ |
567 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Federal tobacco quota buyout |
|
$ |
59 |
|
|
$ |
50 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FDA user fees |
|
$ |
15 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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
72
be approximately $240 million to $250 million in 2010. For additional information, see
Litigation Affecting the Cigarette Industry Health-Care Cost Recovery Cases State Settlement
Agreements and Tobacco Buyout Legislation and Related Litigation in note 9 to condensed
consolidated financial statements (unaudited). Expenses for FDA user fees are expected to be
approximately $70 million to $80 million in 2010.
Selling, general and administrative expenses include the costs of litigating and administering
product liability claims, as well as other legal expenses. RJR Tobaccos product liability defense
costs were $37 million and $27 million for the three months ended March 31, 2010 and 2009,
respectively. The increase in product liability defense costs in 2010 compared with 2009 is due
primarily to the increase in the number of Engle Progeny cases in or scheduled for trial. For
additional information, see Individual Smoking and Health Cases Engle Progeny Cases in note 9
to condensed consolidated financial statements (unaudited).
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; |
|
|
|
|
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 note 9 to condensed consolidated financial statements (unaudited) for detailed
information regarding the number and type of cases pending, and Litigation Affecting the
Cigarette Industry Scheduled Trials in note 9 to condensed consolidated financial statements
(unaudited) for detailed information regarding the number and nature of cases in trial and
scheduled for trial through March 31, 2011.
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, including the increased number of cases in trial and scheduled for trial,
RJR Tobaccos product liability defense costs continue to increase. In addition, it is possible
that other 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.
73
American Snuff
Net Sales
The moist snuff shipment volume, in millions of cans, for American Snuff was as
follows(1):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For the Three Months Ended March 31, |
|
|
2010 |
|
2009 |
|
% Change |
KODIAK |
|
|
12.0 |
|
|
|
10.7 |
|
|
|
12.0 |
% |
GRIZZLY |
|
|
72.6 |
|
|
|
65.0 |
|
|
|
11.7 |
% |
Other |
|
|
1.2 |
|
|
|
0.8 |
|
|
|
46.9 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total moist snuff |
|
|
85.7 |
|
|
|
76.4 |
|
|
|
12.2 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(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. |
American Snuffs net sales for the three months ended March 31, 2010, were $161 million
compared with net sales of $166 million for the three months ended March 31, 2009, due to lower
pricing on KODIAK, partially offset by higher moist snuff volume. While shipments of GRIZZLY, American Snuffs leading price-value brand increased in the
first quarter of 2010, market share was negatively impacted by competitive pricing pressure, promotional activity and new product introductions. Shipments of KODIAK, American Snuffs
leading premium brand, were higher in 2010, while market share remained stable.
American Snuffs share 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 Three Months Ended |
|
|
March 31, |
|
December 31, |
|
Share |
|
March 31, |
|
Share |
|
|
2010 |
|
2009 |
|
Point Change |
|
2009 |
|
Point Change |
KODIAK |
|
|
3.8 |
% |
|
|
3.8 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
3.8 |
% |
|
|
|
|
GRIZZLY |
|
|
24.0 |
% |
|
|
25.3 |
% |
|
|
(1.3 |
) |
|
|
24.7 |
% |
|
|
(0.7 |
) |
Other |
|
|
0.3 |
% |
|
|
0.3 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
0.3 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total moist snuff |
|
|
28.1 |
% |
|
|
29.4 |
% |
|
|
(1.3 |
) |
|
|
28.8 |
% |
|
|
(0.7 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Distributor shipments-to-retail share of U.S. moist snuff
is included in this document because it is used by
American Snuff 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 American Snuffs overall growth and profitability
within the U.S. smokeless tobacco market. Moist snuff accounted for approximately 71% of American
Snuffs revenue in the first quarter of 2010 compared with approximately 64% of American Snuffs
revenue in the first quarter of 2009. American Snuff had 28.1 share points of the U.S. moist snuff
market in the first quarter of 2010 and 28.8 share points in the first quarter of 2009 based on
distributor-reported data processed by MSAi, for distributor shipments to retail. Moist snuff
industry shipment volume grew over 8.9 share points in the first three months of 2010 compared with
the same period in 2009, due to competitive promotional strategies in 2010, in addition to trade
inventory reductions during the first three months of 2009 in response to the federal excise tax
increase effective April 1, 2009.
74
GRIZZLY had 24.0 share points of moist snuff shipments in the first quarter of 2010, a
decrease from the first quarter of 2009, due to higher competitive promotional volume. In the
first quarter of 2010, GRIZZLY 1900 Long Cut was launched nationally as were embossed metal lids
across the entire brand. In the industry, pouch styles have grown over 45% in 2010 and now account
for nearly 10% of moist snuff sales. GRIZZLYs pouch styles accounted for over 17% of the pouch
segment at March 31, 2010.
American Snuff expanded CAMEL Dip, a premium moist snuff, in two styles, Wintergreen Wide Cut
and Dark Milled, into ten additional markets and introduced a new style, CAMEL Wintergreen Pouches,
in those same markets during the first quarter of 2010.
The shipment share of KODIAK in the first quarter of 2010 was stable compared with the first
quarter of 2009. KODIAK upgraded to embossed metal lids late in the first quarter to further
enhance the brands premium image.
Operating Income
American Snuffs operating income for the three months ended March 31, 2010, increased $76
million, as the 2009 operating income was unfavorably impacted by a trademark impairment charge of
$76 million related to the forecasted sales impact due to the increase in federal excise tax.
RAI Consolidated
Interest and debt expense was $60 million for the quarter ended March 31, 2010, a decrease of
$6 million from the respective comparable prior-year period. This decrease was primarily due to
lower debt balances in 2010 as compared with 2009.
Interest income was $4 million
for the quarter ended March 31, 2010, a decrease of $1 million
compared with the quarter ended March 31, 2009.
Other expense, net was $2 million
for the quarter ended March 31, 2010, and $19 million for
the quarter ended March 31, 2009. Other expense, net for 2009 included $16 million expense related
to interest rate swaps.
Provision for income taxes was $214 million, for an effective rate of 41.8%, for the three
months ended March 31, 2010, compared with $9 million, for an effective rate of 53.3%, for the
three months ended March 31, 2009. The effective tax rate for the first three months of 2010 was
unfavorably impacted by a $27 million increase in tax attributable to the Patient Protection and
Affordable Care Act of 2010 and the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010. The
effective tax rate for the first three months of 2009 was unfavorably impacted by increases in
unrecognized income tax benefits and increases in tax attributable to accumulated and undistributed
foreign earnings. RAI expects its effective tax rate for the full-year of 2010 to be approximately
38.0%. 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 of 2004.
Losses from discontinued operations relates to $307 million accrued during the first quarter of 2010, to
adjust previous contingency accruals, resulting from settlements in April 2010 associated with the
former international businesses of RJR Tobacco and Northern Brands that were sold to JTI in 1999.
RJR Tobacco entered into a Comprehensive Agreement requiring it to pay the Canadian
federal, provincial and territorial governments Canadian $325 million. In a separate matter,
Northern Brands entered into a plea agreement with the Ministry of the Attorney General of Ontario,
requiring it to pay a fine of Canadian $75 million. A comprehensive discussion of the Canadian matters is set forth in note 9 to condensed consolidated
financial statements (unaudited) under Litigation Affecting the Cigarette Industry Other
Litigation and Developments-Canadian Matters, and additional details
regarding the settlement are set forth in note 5 to condensed consolidated financial statements
(unaudited).
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
75
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.
Generally, 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 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.
RAIs operating companies monitor the liquidity of key suppliers and customers, and where
liquidity concerns are indentified, appropriate contingency or response plans are developed.
During the quarter ended March 31, 2010, no business interruptions occurred due to key supplier
liquidity, and no liquidity issues were identified involving significant customers.
As of March 31, 2010, RAI held investments primarily in auction rate securities, a
mortgage-backed security and a marketable equity security. 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 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 auction rate securities and mortgage-backed security for a period of time
sufficient to allow for sale, redemption or anticipated recovery in fair value. For additional
information on these investments, see note 2 to condensed consolidated financial statements
(unaudited).
Cash Flows
Net cash flows from operating activities were $840 million in the first three months of 2010,
compared with $863 million in the first three months of 2009. This change was driven primarily by
the higher pension and tax payments, partially offset by higher pricing and lower inventories in
2010.
Net cash flows used in investing activities were $19 million in the first three months of
2010, compared with $12 million for the first three months of 2009 due to higher capital
expenditures in 2010 for American Snuff facility expansion projects.
Net cash flows used in financing activities were $265 million in the first three months of
2010, compared with $252 million in the prior-year period. Dividends paid on common stock in 2010
were higher as a result of the increase in the dividend per share amount.
Borrowing Arrangements
The principal amount of RAIs and RJRs outstanding long-term notes was $4.2 billion as of
March 31, 2010. RAI and RJR use interest rate swaps to manage interest rate risk on a portion of
their debt obligations. On January 6, 2009, RAI and RJR entered 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, 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, and
effectively reduced net interest costs over the remaining life of the notes. At the same time, RAI
and RJR terminated an interest rate swap agreement in the notional amount of $100 million with a
maturity date of June 1, 2012. 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%.
For additional information regarding RAIs interest rate swap transactions, see note 2 to
condensed consolidated financial statements (unaudited).
76
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.
On June 28, 2007, RAI entered into a Fifth Amended and Restated Credit Agreement, which, as
subsequently amended, 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.
At March 31, 2010, RAI had $10 million in letters of credit outstanding under the credit
facility. At such date, no borrowings were outstanding, and the remaining $488 million of the
credit facility was available for borrowing.
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 March 31, 2010.
Dividends
On February 2, 2010, RAIs board of directors declared a quarterly cash dividend of $0.90 per
common share. The dividend was 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 RAIs common stock in an aggregate
amount that is approximately 75% of RAIs annual consolidated net income.
Stock Repurchases
Due to RAIs incorporation in North Carolina, which does not recognize treasury shares, any
shares of RAI common stock repurchased by RAI are cancelled at the time of repurchase. During the
first three months of 2010, at a cost of $5 million, RAI purchased 88,748 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 $32 million and $27 million
for the first three months of 2010 and 2009, respectively. The increase was primarily the result
of American Snuff facility expansion projects. RAIs operating subsidiaries plan to spend an
additional $210 million to $220 million for capital expenditures during the remainder of 2010.
Approximately $150 million of the remaining capital expenditures for 2010 is associated with
capacity expansion and FDA compliance at American Snuff. 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 approximately $5 million of material long-term commitments for capital expenditures as of
March 31, 2010.
Litigation and Settlements
RJR Tobacco, American Snuff Co., 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. For
further discussion of specific cases, see note 9 to condensed consolidated financial statements
(unaudited). Unfavorable judgments have been returned in a number of tobacco-related cases and
state enforcement actions. As of March 31, 2010, RJR Tobacco has paid approximately $9 million
since January 1, 2008, related to unfavorable smoking and health litigation judgments. As of March
31, 2010, RJR Tobacco had liabilities totaling $325 million related to non-smoking and health
litigation, of which $320 million was recorded during the first quarter of 2010 related to RJR
Tobaccos Comprehensive Agreement with the Canadian federal, provincial and territorial
governments. As of March 31, 2010, Northern Brands had liabilities of
77
$74 million related to a plea agreement with the
Ministry of the Attorney General of Ontario.
A comprehensive discussion of the Canadian matters is set forth in note 9 to condensed consolidated
financial statements (unaudited) under Litigation Affecting the Cigarette Industry Other
Litigation and Developments-Canadian Matters, and additional details
regarding the settlement are set forth in note 5 to condensed consolidated financial statements
(unaudited).
Litigation is subject to many uncertainties, and generally it is not possible to predict the
outcome of the litigation pending against RJR Tobacco, American Snuff Co., or their affiliates or
indemnitees, or to reasonably estimate the amount or range of any possible loss. 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 or difficulties in obtaining the bonds required to stay
execution of judgments on appeal.
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 note 9 to condensed consolidated financial statements (unaudited), 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 note 9 to condensed consolidated financial statements (unaudited). 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 note 9 to condensed consolidated financial statements (unaudited).
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. The federal government and/or various
state governments have adopted or are considering, among other things, legislation and regulations
that would:
|
|
|
significantly increase their taxes on tobacco products; |
|
|
|
|
regulate the manufacture, sale, marketing and packaging of 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; |
78
|
|
|
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. |
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 State Childrens Health Insurance Program. Under these federal tax
increases:
|
|
|
the federal excise tax per pack of 20 cigarettes is $1.01; |
|
|
|
|
the federal excise tax rate for chewing tobacco is $0.5033 per pound, and for snuff is
$1.51 per pound; |
|
|
|
|
the federal excise tax on small cigars, defined as those weighing three pounds or less
per thousand, is $50.33 per thousand; and |
|
|
|
|
the federal excise tax rate for roll-your-own tobacco is $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 March 31,
2010, the weighted average state cigarette excise tax per pack, calculated on a 12-month rolling
average basis, was approximately $1.15, compared with the 12-month rolling average of $1.16 as of
December 31, 2009. As of March 31, 2010, two states had passed cigarette excise tax increases since
January 1, 2010, 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.
As of March 31, 2010, 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 March 31, 2010, 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. As of March 31, 2010, weight-based taxes on
moist snuff range from $.02 for cans weighing between 5/8 of an ounce and 1-5/8 ounces in Alabama
(but up to $0.12 for cans weighing over six ounces) to $2.14 per ounce in Oregon, and Kentucky has a
unit tax of $0.19 per unit. Weight-based taxes on chewing tobacco range from $.015 per ounce in
Alabama to $2.02 per ounce in Maine. Legislation to convert from an ad valorem to a weight-based
tax has been introduced in several states in 2010. No states passed tax increases on other tobacco
products in the first quarter of 2010, but several states are expected to do so by the end of the
second quarter of 2010, and a number of other states are considering an increase in their taxes on
other tobacco products before the end of 2010.
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, American Snuff Co., 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 note 9 to condensed consolidated financial statements
(unaudited).
79
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.
On March 31, 2010, President Obama signed into law the Prevent All Cigarette Trafficking Act.
This legislation, among other things, restricts the sale of tobacco products directly to consumers
or unlicensed recipients, including over the Internet, through expanded reporting requirements,
requirements for delivery, sales and penalties. It is not anticipated that this legislation will
have a material adverse effect on the sale of tobacco products by RAIs operating companies.
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, pursuant to the FDA Tobacco Act, as of September 20, 2009, tobacco manufacturers
were 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). On February 28, 2010, all manufacturers
registered with the FDA their domestic manufacturing facilities as well as all cigarette and
smokeless tobacco products sold in the United States. Finally, on March 18, 2010, pursuant to the
FDA Tobacco Act, the FDA reissued regulations addressing advertising and marketing restrictions
that were originally promulgated in 1996.
On a going forward basis, various provisions under the FDA Tobacco Act and regulations to be
issued under the FDA Tobacco Act will become effective and will:
|
|
|
require manufacturers to produce health-related documents generated from and after
June 22, 2009; |
|
|
|
|
require manufacturers to report ingredients and harmful constituents; |
|
|
|
|
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; |
80
|
|
|
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 for 2010 will
be approximately $75 million to $85 million.
Within the Center, a Tobacco Products Scientific Advisory Committee, referred to as the TPSAC,
was established on March 22, 2010, to provide advice, information and recommendations with respect
to the safety, dependence or health issues related to tobacco products. The TPSAC is scheduled to
meet quarterly to address matters brought to it by the Center as well as those required of it by
the Act, 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. |
The TPSAC held its first meeting on March 30-31, 2010, to discuss the impact on the use of
menthol in cigarettes on the public health. The TPSAC is expected to issue a report on this topic
by March 22, 2011.
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 TPSACs 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,
responded to FDAs information request on April 1, 2010.
On August 31, 2009, RJR Tobacco and American Snuff Co. 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 note 9 to
condensed consolidated financial statements (unaudited).
81
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 American Snuff Co.s
brands, and an increase in costs to RJR Tobacco and American Snuff Co. 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.
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 American Snuff Co. or smokeless tobacco products in general, but any
new legislation or regulations could have an adverse effect on American Snuff Co. or smokeless
tobacco products in general.
Tobacco Buyout Legislation
For information relating to tobacco buyout legislation, see Tobacco Buyout Legislation and
Related Litigation in note 9 to condensed consolidated financial statements (unaudited).
Other Contingencies
For
information relating to other contingencies of RAI, RJR, RJR Tobacco and American Snuff
Co., see Other Contingencies in note 9 to condensed consolidated financial statements (unaudited).
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 2009 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
smokeless tobacco products) under the State Settlement Agreements; |
82
|
|
|
the continuing decline in volume in the domestic 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; |
|
|
|
|
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 and planned integration of field trade-marketing
organizations, without negatively affecting financial or operating results; |
|
|
|
|
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 foreign currency exchange rate risk, interest rate
risk and the return on corporate cash; |
|
|
|
|
changes in the financial position or strength of lenders participating in RAIs 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.
83
Item 3. 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 related primarily to purchases and 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.
The table below provides information, as of March 31, 2010, about RAIs financial instruments
that are sensitive to changes in interest rates. The table presents notional amounts and weighted
average interest rates by contractual maturity dates.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fair |
|
|
2010 |
|
2011 |
|
2012 |
|
2013 |
|
2014 |
|
Thereafter |
|
Total |
|
Value(1) |
Investments: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Variable Rate |
|
$ |
3,235 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
36 |
|
|
$ |
3,271 |
|
|
$ |
3,271 |
|
Average Interest Rate |
|
|
0.1 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2.1 |
% |
|
|
0.1 |
% |
|
|
|
|
Fixed-Rate |
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
6 |
|
|
$ |
6 |
|
|
$ |
6 |
|
Average Interest Rate(2) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4.7 |
% |
|
|
4.7 |
% |
|
|
|
|
Debt: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fixed-Rate |
|
$ |
300 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
450 |
|
|
$ |
685 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
2,375 |
|
|
$ |
3,810 |
|
|
$ |
4,144 |
|
Average Interest Rate(2) |
|
|
6.5 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
7.3 |
% |
|
|
7.4 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
7.3 |
% |
|
|
7.2 |
% |
|
|
|
|
Variable Rate |
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
400 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
400 |
|
|
$ |
398 |
|
Average Interest Rate(2) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
1.0 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1.0 |
% |
|
|
|
|
Swaps Fixed to Floating: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Notional Amount(3) |
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
350 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
1,150 |
|
|
$ |
1,500 |
|
|
$ |
215 |
|
Average Variable
Interest Pay Rate(2) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1.8 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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 |
|
|
$ |
22 |
|
Average Variable
Interest Receive Rate(2) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1.8 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1.7 |
% |
|
|
1.7 |
% |
|
|
|
|
Average Fixed Interest
Pay 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 March 31, 2010, RAI and RJR 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. |
84
RAIs exposure to foreign currency transactions was not material to results of operations for
the three months ended March 31, 2010, 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.
Item 4. 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) |
|
There have been no changes in RAIs internal controls over financial reporting that occurred
during the first quarter of 2010 that have materially affected, or are reasonably likely to
materially affect, RAIs internal controls over financial reporting. |
PART II-Other Information
Item 1. Legal Proceedings
For a discussion of the litigation and legal proceedings pending against RJR Tobacco, American
Snuff Co. or their affiliates, including RAI and RJR, or indemnitees, including B&W, see note 9 to
condensed consolidated financial statements (unaudited) and Managements Discussion and Analysis
of Financial Condition and Results of Operations Critical Accounting Policies Litigation
included in Part I, Item 2.
Item 2. Unregistered Sales of Equity Securities and Use of Proceeds
RAI conducts its business through its subsidiaries and is dependent on the earnings and cash
flows of its subsidiaries to satisfy its obligations and other cash needs. For more information,
see Managements Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of
OperationsLiquidity and Financial Condition in Part I, Item 2. RAI believes that the provisions
of its credit facility and the guarantees of the credit facility, interest rate swaps and notes
will not impair its payment of quarterly dividends.
Item 6. Exhibits
|
|
|
Exhibit |
|
|
Number |
|
Description |
10.1
|
|
Reynolds American Inc. Outside Directors Compensation
Summary, effective January 1, 2010 (incorporated by reference
to Exhibit 10.33 to RAIs Annual Report on Form 10-K for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2009). |
|
|
|
10.2
|
|
Form of Performance Share Agreement (three-year vesting),
dated March 1, 2010, between Reynolds American Inc. and the
grantee named therein. |
|
|
|
10.3
|
|
Form of Amendment No. 1 to the 2009 Performance Share
Agreement (three-year vesting), dated March 22, 2010, between
Reynolds American Inc. and the grantee named therein. |
|
|
|
10.4
|
|
Comprehensive Agreement, dated as of April 13, 2010, among
R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company and Her Majesty the Queen in
Right of Canada and the Provinces and Territories listed on
the signature pages attached thereto (incorporated by
reference to Exhibit 10.1 to RAIs Form 8-K dated April 16,
2010). |
|
|
|
10.5
|
|
Agreed Statement of Facts, dated as of April 13, 2010,
between Her Majesty the Queen and Northern Brands
International, Inc. (incorporated by reference to
Exhibit 10.2 to RAIs Form 8-K dated April 16, 2010). |
|
|
|
31.1
|
|
Certification of Chief Executive Officer relating to RAIs
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31,
2010. |
|
31.2
|
|
Certification of Chief Financial Officer relating to RAIs
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March
31, 2010. |
85
|
|
|
Exhibit |
|
|
Number |
|
Description |
32.1*
|
|
Certification of Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial
Officer relating to RAIs Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for
the quarter ended March 31, 2010, pursuant to Section 18
U.S.C. §1350, adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. |
|
|
|
101.INS*
|
|
XBRL instance document |
|
|
|
101.SCH*
|
|
XBRL taxonomy extension schema |
|
|
|
101.CAL*
|
|
XBRL taxonomy extension calculation 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 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. |
86
SIGNATURES
Pursuant to the requirements 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: April 29, 2010 |
/s/ Thomas R. Adams
|
|
|
Thomas R. Adams |
|
|
Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |
|
87