**Exhibit 99.1****I.** **INDIVIDUAL SMOKER CASES****District of Columbia**Sims, et al. v. Philip Morris, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:01-CV-01107-GK, USDC,District of Columbia (case filed 5/23/01). Three individuals suing. In February 2003, thecourt denied plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. Plaintiffs subsequently filedmotions seeking reconsideration and reversal of the order denying class certification, whichmotions were denied by the court in December 2006. No appeals were taken.**Florida**Engle Progeny Cases. Pursuant to the Florida Supreme Court’s July 2006 ruling in*Engle v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.*, which decertified the class on a prospective basis,former class members had one year from January 11, 2007 to file individual lawsuits. Inaddition, some individuals who filed suit prior to January 11, 2007, and who claim they meetthe conditions in *Engle*, are attempting to avail themselves of the *Engle*ruling. Lawsuitsby individuals requesting the benefit of the *Engle*ruling, whether filed before or after theJanuary 11, 2007 mandate, are referred to as the *Engle*progeny cases. Certain of these caseswere previously listed in this Exhibit 99.1, but are now generally referred to in thisparagraph. As of February 22, 2008, Liggett or the Company were served in approximately1,600 *Engle*progeny cases in both state and federal courts in Florida. These cases includeapproximately 3,500 plaintiffs. Plaintiffs have 120 days to serve cases filed before thedeadline, so the total number of cases could increase substantially. For further informationon the *Engle* case, see “II. Class Action Cases — *Engle* Case,” below.Bailey v. The American Tobacco Company, et al., Case No. 97-18056-CA-15, CircuitCourt of the 11th Judicial Circuit, Florida, Miami-Dade County (case filed8/12/97). One individual suing as Personal Representative of the estate and survivors of adeceased smoker.Cowart v. Liggett Group Inc., et al., Case No. 98-01483CA, Circuit Court of the4th Judicial Circuit, Florida, Duval County (case filed 3/16/98). One individualsuing.Davis, B., et al. v. Liggett Group Inc., et al., Case No. 02-48914, Circuit Court ofthe 17th Judicial Circuit, Florida, Broward County (case filed 10/4/02). Liggettis the only defendant in this action. In April 2004, a jury awarded compensatory damages of$540,000 against Liggett. In addition, plaintiff’s counsel was awarded legal fees of$752,000. On October 10,2007, the compensatory award was affirmed by the FourthDistrict Court of Appeal. Liggett filed a motion for rehearing and/or certification withthe Fourth District Court of Appeals. On February 20, 2008, the Fourth District Court ofAppeals certified certain issues for further appeal to the Florida Supreme Court.Duecker v. Liggett Group Inc., Case No. 98-03093 CA, Circuit Court of the4th Judicial Circuit, Florida, Duval County (case filed 7/5/98). One individualsuing. Liggett is the only tobacco company defendant.Ferlanti v. Liggett Group Inc., et al., Case No. 03-21697, Circuit Court of the17th Judicial Circuit, Florida, Broward County (case filed 12/11/03). Oneindividual suing as Personal Representative of the estate and survivors of a deceasedsmoker. Liggett is the sole defendant in this action. Plaintiff’s motion for leave toamend to add a claim for punitive damages was granted on April 25, 2007. Trial commenced onFebruary 19, 2008, and the court declared a mistrial on February 22, 2008.
 

 
Laschke, et al. v. R.J. Reynolds, et al., Case No. 96-8131-CI-008, Circuit Court ofthe 6th Judicial Circuit, Florida, Pinellas County (case filed 12/20/96). Twoindividuals suing. The dismissal of the case was reversed on appeal, and the case wasremanded to the trial court. Motions to dismiss have been filed by the defendants.Levine v. R.J. Reynolds, et al., Case No. CL 95-98769 (AH), Circuit Court of the15th Judicial Circuit, Florida, Palm Beach County (case filed 7/24/96). Oneindividual suing. It is likely the matter will be set for trial in the Fall of 2008.Lobley v. Philip Morris, et al., Case No. 97-1033-CA-10-L, Circuit Court of the18th Judicial Circuit, Florida, Seminole County (case filed 5/14/97). Twoindividuals suing.Lukacs v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, et al., Case No. 01-38-22 CA23, CircuitCourt of the 11th Judicial Circuit, Florida, Miami-Dade County (case filed12/15/01). One individual suing as Personal Representative of the estate and survivors of adeceased smoker. In June 2002, the jury awarded $37,500,000 in compensatory damages, whichwas subsequently reduced to approximately $24,860,000. The jury found Liggett 50%responsible. The plaintiff has requested that the court enter partial judgment in thismatter, award attorneys’ fees and costs and schedule a trial on punitive damages. A hearingon plaintiff’s motion to enter final judgment occurred on March 15, 2007. A decision ispending. See Note 12, Contingencies, for a more detailed discussion of this case.Meckler, et al. v. Brown & Williamson, et al., Case No. 97-03949-CA, Circuit Courtof the 4th Judicial Circuit, Florida, Duval County (case filed 7/10/97). Oneindividual suing.Rawls, et al. v. Liggett Group Inc., et al., Case No. 97-01354 CA, Circuit Court ofthe 4th Judicial Circuit, Florida, Duval County (case filed 3/6/97). Oneindividual suing.Spry, et al. v. Liggett Group, LLC, et al., Case No. 06-31216 CICI, Circuit Court ofthe 7th Judicial Circuit, Florida, Volusia County (case filed 7/27/06). Twoindividuals suing.Strohmetz v. Philip Morris, et al., Case No. 98-03787 CA, Circuit Court of the4th Judicial Circuit, Florida, Duval County (case filed 7/16/98). One individualsuing.**Louisiana**Dimm, et al. v. R.J. Reynolds, et al., Case No. 53919, Circuit Court of the18th Judicial District Court, Louisiana, Iberville Parish (case filed 7/25/00).Seven individuals suing.Hunter, et al. v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, et al., Case No. 2002/18748m,Circuit Court of the Civil District Court, Louisiana, Parish of Orleans (case filed12/4/2002). Two individuals suing.Newsom, et al. v. R.J. Reynolds, et al., Case No. 105838, Circuit Court of the16th Judicial District Court, Louisiana, St. Mary Parish (case filed 5/17/00).Five individuals suing.Oser v. The American Tobacco Co., et al., Case No. 97-9293, Circuit Court of theCivil District Court, Louisiana, Parish of Orleans (case filed 5/27/97). One individualsuing.
2

 
Reese, et al. v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, et al., Case No. 2003-12761,Circuit Court of the 22nd Judicial District Court, Louisiana, St. Tammany Parish(case filed 6/10/03). Five individuals suing.**Maryland**Aversa, et al. v. John Crane-Houdaille, Inc., et al., Case No. 24-X-05-000224,Circuit Court, Baltimore City, Maryland (case filed 11/8/06). Two individuals suing onbehalf of Robert W. Yeater, Sr. (deceased).Brown v. John Crane-Houdaille, Inc., et al., Case No. 24-X-06-000207, Circuit Court,Baltimore City, Maryland (case filed 8/2/07).Chalk, Jr., et al v. Quigley Co., Inc., et al., Case No. 24-X-04-000454, CircuitCourt, Baltimore City, Maryland (case filed 4/21/04). Individual plaintiff seeks damagesallegedly caused to decedent by exposure to asbestos and cigarettes, with claims againstcertain asbestos manufacturer defendants and certain tobacco company defendants.Davis v. Quigley Co., Inc., et al., Case No. 24-X-04-000440, Circuit Court,Baltimore City, Maryland (case filed 2/13/07). Plaintiff is suing individually and asPersonal Representative of the Estate of Charles F. Davis seeking damages allegedly causedto decedent by exposure to asbestos and cigarettes, with claims against certain asbestosmanufacturer defendants and certain tobacco company defendants.Holz, et al. v. A.W. Chesterton Co., et al., Case No. 24-X-04-000433, Circuit Court,Baltimore City, Maryland. (case filed 4/14/04). Plaintiff, suing individually and asPersonal Representative of the Estate of Clarence R. Elbon, had previously sued asbestosdefendants and has now joined certain tobacco company defendants, including Liggett.Liggett filed a motion to dismiss on October 24, 2006, which is pending before the court.Lloyd, et al v. John Crane-Houdaille, Inc., et al., Case No. 24-X-06-000185, CircuitCourt of Baltimore City, Maryland, (case filed 6/8/07).Masucci, et al. v. John Crane-Houdaille, Inc., et.al., Case No. 24-X-04-001043,Circuit Court, Baltimore City, Maryland (case filed 10/25/04). Plaintiff is suingindividually and as Personal Representative of the Estate of Louis M. Masucci.Morehead, et al. v. John Crane-Houdaille, Inc., et al., Case No. 24-X-06-000475,Circuit Court of Baltimore City, Maryland (case filed 4/20/07). Two individuals suing.Individual plaintiff seeks damages allegedly caused to decedent by exposure to asbestos andcigarettes, with claims against certain asbestos manufacturer defendants and certain tobaccocompany defendants, including Liggett.Murray v. John Crane-Houdaille, Inc., et al., Case No. 24-X-04-001007, CircuitCourt, Baltimore City, Maryland (case filed 8/23/07).Pumphrey v. John Crane-Houdaille, Inc., et al., Case No. 24-X-05-000430, CircuitCourt, Baltimore City, Maryland (case filed 10/4/07). Plaintiff is suing individually and asPersonal Representative of the Estate of Lee L. Pumphrey.
3

 
Smothers v. John Crane-Houdaille, Inc., et al., Case No. 24-X-05-000217, CircuitCourt, Baltimore City, Maryland (case filed 10/10/07). Plaintiff is suing individually andas Personal Representative of the Estate of Joseph Smothers.Taylor, et al v. John Crane-Houdaille, Inc., et al., Case No. 24-X-05-000555,Circuit Court, Baltimore City, Maryland (case filed 9/21/07).Thompson, et al. v. John Crane-Houdaille, Inc., et al., Case No. 24-X-04-000912,Circuit Court, Baltimore City, Maryland (case filed 9/24/04). Plaintiff is suingindividually and as the Personal Representative of the Estate of Leon Thompson.**Mississippi**Cochran v. R.J. Reynolds, et al., Case No. 2002-0366(3), Circuit Court, Mississippi,George County (case filed 12/31/02). One individual suing.Fosselman v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, et al., Case No. 02-0196(E), CircuitCourt, Mississippi, Wilkinson County (case filed 4/29/03). One individual suing.Green v. Philip Morris Inc., et al., Case No. 2000-596 (B), Circuit Court,Mississippi, Jefferson County (case filed 11/16/00). One individual suing on behalf ofestate and survivors of a deceased smoker.Jennings, et al. v. R. J. Reynolds, et al., Case No. 2000-238, Circuit Court,Mississippi, Claiborne County (case filed 11/2/00). Fourteen individuals suing.McGee, et al. v. Philip Morris Incorporated, et al., Case No. 2000-596 (A), CircuitCourt, Mississippi, Jefferson County (case filed 11/16/00). One individual suing. Trial isscheduled to commence on October 7, 2008.Minor, Jr. v. Philip Morris Incorporated, et al., Civil Action No. 2000-596(D), Circuit Court, Mississippi, Jefferson County (case filed 11/16/00). One individualsuing.Rogers v. Philip Morris Incorporated, et al., Civil Action No. 2000-596 (E), CircuitCourt, Mississippi, Jefferson County (case filed 11/16/00). One individual suing on behalfof the estate and survivors of a deceased smoker.Townsend v. Philip Morris Incorporated, et al., Civil Action No. 2000-596 (F),Circuit Court, Mississippi, Jefferson County (case filed 11/16/00). One individual suing.T & N, Ltd., et al., v. R.J. Reynolds Company, et al., Civil Action No. 2001-87,Circuit Court, Mississippi, Claiborne County (case filed 4/18/01). One corporate plaintiffand three individuals suing.Walker v. Philip Morris Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 2000-596 (C), Circuit Court,Mississippi, Jefferson County (case filed 11/16/00). One individual suing on behalf of theestate and survivors of a deceased smoker.
4

 
**Missouri**Baryo, et al. v. Philip Morris USA, Inc., et al., Case No. 05-1182-CV-W-REL, U.S.District Court, Western District of Missouri, Western Division (case filed 12/28/01). Threeindividuals suing, *pro se,*for wrongful death. In September 2006, the court dismissed allbut two of plaintiffs’ claims, with prejudice. The remaining claims are product liabilityclaims. Discovery is ongoing. Defendants recently filed a motion for summary judgmentcontending that the remaining claims are time barred. Trial is scheduled to commence onFebruary 2, 2009.Nuzum v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corporation, et al., Case No. 03-CV-237237,Circuit Court, Missouri, Jackson County (case filed 5/21/03). Two individuals suing.**New York**Brantley v. The American Tobacco Company, et al., Case No. 114317/01, Supreme Courtof New York, New York County (case filed 7/23/01). One individual suing.Debobes v. The American Tobacco Company, et al., Case No. 29544/92, Supreme Court ofNew York, Nassau County (case filed 10/17/97). One individual suing.Gouveia, et al, v. Fortune Brands, Inc., et al., Case No. 210671/04, Supreme Court,Rensselaer County (case filed 9/16/1997). Two individuals suing. Discovery is scheduled toclose on February 6, 2008 and a Note of Issue is scheduled to be filed on or before February13, 2008.Hausrath, et al. v. Philip Morris Inc., et al., Case No. I2001-09526, SuperiorCourt, New York, Erie County (case filed 01/24/02). Two individuals suing. Trial isscheduled to commence on September 8, 2008 .Hobart v. The American Tobacco Company, et al., Case No. 102869/02, Supreme Court ofNew York, New York County (case filed 11/5/97). One individual suing.James v. The American Tobacco Company, et al., Case No. 103034/02, Supreme Court ofNew York, New York County (case filed 4/4/97). One individual suing.Shea, et al. v. The American Tobacco Company, et al., Case No. 008938/03, SupremeCourt of New York, Nassau County (case filed 10/17/97). Two individuals suing. A Note ofIssue has been filed and the case is ready for trial.Standish v. The American Tobacco Company, et al., Case No. 18418-97, Supreme Courtof New York, Bronx County (case filed 7/28/97). One individual suing.Tomasino, et al. v. The American Tobacco Company, et al., Case No. 027182/97,Supreme Court of New York, Nassau County (case filed 9/23/97). Two individuals suing. ANote of Issue has been filed and the case is ready for trial.Tormey, et al. v. The American Tobacco Company, et al., Case No. 2005-0506, SupremeCourt of New York, Onondaga County (case filed 1/25/05). Two individuals suing.Yedwabnick, et al. v. The American Tobacco Company, et al., Case No. 20525/97,Supreme Court of New York, Queens County (case filed 9/19/97). One individual suing.
5

 
**Ohio**Croft, et al. v. Akron Gasket & Packing, et al., Case No. CV04541681, Court ofCommon Pleas, Ohio, Cuyahoga County (case filed 8/25/05). Two individuals suing.**Pennsylvania**Buscemi v. Brown & Williamson, et al., Docket No. 9552-02, Court of Common Pleas,Pennsylvania, Delaware County (case filed 9/21/99). One individual suing.**West Virginia**Brewer, et al. v. The American Tobacco Company, et al., Case No. 01-C-82, CircuitCourt, West Virginia, Ohio County (case filed 3/20/01). Two individuals suing.Little v. The American Tobacco Company, et al., Case No. 01-C-235, Circuit Court,West Virginia, Ohio County (case filed 6/4/01). One individual suing.**II.** **CLASS ACTION CASES**Brown, et al. v. The American Tobacco Co. et al., Case No. 711400, Superior Courtof California, County of San Diego (case filed 10/1/97). In April 2001, under theCalifornia Unfair Competition Laws and the Consumer Legal Remedies Act, the court granted inpart the plaintiffs’ motion for certification of a class composed of residents of Californiawho 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 inCalifornia. The action was brought against the major U.S. cigarette manufacturers,including Liggett, seeking to recover restitution, disgorgement of profits and otherequitable relief under California Business and Professions Code. Certification was grantedas to the plaintiffs’ claims that the defendants violated § 17200 of the California Businessand Professions Code pertaining to unfair competition. The court, however, refused tocertify the class under the California Legal Remedies Act or the plaintiffs’ common lawclaims. Following the November 2004 passage of a proposition in California that changed thelaw regarding cases of this nature, the defendants moved to decertify the class. In March2005, the court granted the defendants’ motion. In May 2005, the plaintiffs appealed. InSeptember 2006, the California Court of Appeal affirmed the order decertifying the class.In October 2006, the plaintiffs filed a petition for review with the California SupremeCourt. The petition for review was granted in November 2006. The parties are awaiting adate for oral argument on the petition.Cleary, et al. v. Philip Morris, Inc., et al., Case No. 98 L06427, Circuit Court ofthe State of Illinois, Cook County (case filed 6/3/98). The action was brought on behalf ofpersons who have allegedly been injured by (1) the defendants’ purported conspiracy pursuantto which defendants allegedly concealed material facts regarding the addictive nature ofnicotine; (2) the defendants’ alleged acts of targeting their advertising and marketing tominors; and (3) the defendants’ claimed breach of the public’s right to defendants’compliance with laws prohibiting the distribution of cigarettes to minors. The plaintiffsrequest that the defendants be required to disgorge all profits unjustly received throughtheir sale of cigarettes to plaintiffs, which in no event will be greater than $75,000 each,inclusive of punitive damages, interest and costs. In April 2005, the plaintiffs filed asecond amended complaint. In February 2006, a hearing on the defendants’ motion to dismissoccurred. The court dismissed count V (public nuisance) and
6

 
count VI (unjust enrichment). In April 2006, the plaintiffs filed a motion to reconsidercertain of the findings in the court’s ruling on defendants’ motion to dismiss counts V andVI of the plaintiffs’ second amended complaint. The plaintiffs’ motion forreconsideration was granted in part and denied in part. The court merely reconsideredcertain components of its analysis, but did not modify its original decision, stating thatreconsideration would not revive the plaintiffs’ public nuisance and unjust enrichmentclaims because the plaintiffs still cannot allege a special or separate harm. In July 2006,the plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification. A case management conference washeld in August 2006, and the court entered a Case Management Order. The court ordered anextensive discovery schedule culminating in a supplemental briefing schedule (in June-August2007) on class certification issues, and a class certification hearing occurred on September6, 2007. The parties are awaiting a decision. Merits discovery is stayed pending a rulingby the court on class certification.Engle, et al. v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., et al., Case No. 94-08273 CA 22, CircuitCourt of the 11th Judicial Circuit, Florida, Miami-Dade County (case filed5/5/94). This personal injury class action was brought on behalf of certain namedplaintiffs and all similarly situated allegedly injured smokers resident in Florida. Thecase was certified as a class action in October 1994. Trial commenced in July 1998. Ajudgment for compensatory and punitive damages was entered in November 2000. The judgmentwas reversed in its entirety by an intermediate appellate court in May 2003. On July 7,2006, the Florida Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the May 2003intermediate appellate court decision. Among other things, the Florida Supreme Courtaffirmed the intermediate appellate court’s decision vacating the punitive damages award,and held that the class should be decertified prospectively, but upheld certain trial courtdeterminations and allowed plaintiffs to proceed to trial on individual liability issues andcompensatory and punitive damage issues. All parties moved for rehearing and, on December21, 2006, the Florida Supreme Court denied the motions in all material respects. Themandate on the decision issued on January 11, 2007, at which time the case was remanded tothe Third District Court of Appeal for further proceedings consistent with the FloridaSupreme Court’s opinion. The Third District Court of Appeal remanded the case to the trialcourt. Defendants filed a petition for writ of certiorari to the United States SupremeCourt which was denied in September 2007 Defendants filed a petition for rehearing beforethe United States Supreme Court, which was denied in November 2007. See Note 12,Contingencies, for a more detailed discussion of this case.In Re: Tobacco Litigation (Medical Monitoring) (Blankenship), Case No. 00-C-6000,Circuit Court, West Virginia, Ohio County (case filed 01/26/00). Class action seekingpayments for costs of medical monitoring for current and former smokers. Liggett wassevered from the trial of the other tobacco company defendants. Judgment upon jury verdictin favor of the other tobacco company defendants was affirmed by the West Virginia SupremeCourt in May 2004, which denied plaintiff’s petition for rehearing. Plaintiff did not seekfurther appellate review of this matter, and the case was concluded in favor of alldefendants other than Liggett. The case is dormant.In Re: Tobacco Litigation (Personal Injury Cases), Case No. 00-C-5000, CircuitCourt, West Virginia, Ohio County (case filed 1/18/00). Although not technically a classaction, the court consolidated approximately 750 individual smoker actions that were pendingprior to 2001 for trial on some common related issues. The court recently issued an orderstaying all proceedings pending the outcome of the United States Supreme Court’s review of*Good v. Altria Group Inc.*case. Liggett was severed from the trial of theconsolidated action.
7

 
Lowe, et al. v. Philip Morris Incorporated, et al., Case No. 0111-11895, CircuitCourt, Oregon, Multnomah County (case filed 11/19/01). This personal injury class actioninvolves medical monitoring claims brought on behalf of plaintiff and all Oregon residentswho have smoked cigarettes. The alleged class seeks payments for costs of medicalmonitoring for current and former smokers. In September 2003, the court granted defendants’motion to dismiss the complaint, and plaintiffs appealed to the Oregon Court of Appeals. OnSeptember 6, 2006, the Oregon Court of Appeals upheld the trial court’s decision. OnDecember 27, 2006, plaintiffs petitioned the Oregon Supreme Court to review the decision,and on March 20, 2007, the Oregon Supreme Court granted the petition. Oral argumentoccurred on September 5, 2007 and the parties are awaiting a decision.Parsons, et al. v. Liggett Group Inc., et al., Case No. 98-C-388, Circuit Court,State of West Virginia, Kanawha County (case filed 4/9/98). This personal injury classaction is brought on behalf of plaintiff’s decedent and all West Virginia residents havingclaims for personal injury arising from exposure to both cigarette smoke and asbestosfibers. The action is stayed as a result of bankruptcy petitions filed by three defendants.Romero, et al. v. Philip Morris Companies, Inc. et al., Case No. D0117 CV-00000972,District Court, Rio Arriba County, New Mexico (case filed 4/10/00). In this class action,plaintiffs allege that defendants conspired to fix, raise, stabilize, or maintain prices forcigarettes in the State of New Mexico. Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification wasgranted in April 2003. In February 2005, the New Mexico Supreme Court affirmed the trialcourt’s certification order. In June 2006, the trial court granted defendants’ motionsfor summary judgment. Plaintiffs appealed the decision. Briefing was completed in August2007 and the parties are awaiting a decision.Schwab, et al. v. Philip Morris USA, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:04-CV-01945-JBW-SMG,USDC, Eastern District of New York (case filed 5/11/04). This class action seeks economicdamages on behalf of plaintiffs and all others similarly situated under the RICO actchallenging the practices of defendants in connection with the marketing, advertising,promotion, distribution and sale of “light” cigarettes. The court recently certified anationwide class of “light” smokers. The defendants have appealed the certification andrequested a stay. The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued apermanent stay pending appeal. Oral argument occurred in July 2007 and the parties areawaiting a decision. See Note 12, Contingencies, for a more detailed discussion of thecase.Smith, et al. v. Philip Morris Companies, Inc., et al., Case No. 00-CV-26, DistrictCourt, Kansas, Seward County (case filed 2/7/00). In this class action, plaintiffs allegethat defendants conspired to fix, raise, stabilize, or maintain prices for cigarettes in theState of Kansas. The court granted class certification in November 2001. The case has beenstayed until the Kansas Supreme Court decides a petition for mandamus brought by certaindefendants concerning an order to produce allegedly privileged documents.Young, et al. v. The American Tobacco Company, et al., Case No. 2:97-CV-03851, CivilDistrict Court, State of Louisiana, Orleans Parish (case filed 11/12/97). This purportedpersonal injury class action is brought on behalf of plaintiff and all similarly situatedresidents in Louisiana who, though not themselves cigarette smokers, have been exposed tosecondhand smoke from cigarettes which were manufactured by the defendants, and who sufferedinjury as a result of that exposure. The plaintiffs seek to recover an unspecified amountof compensatory and punitive damages. In October 2004, the trial court stayed this casepending the outcome of the appeal in *Scott v. American Tobacco Co., Inc.*(as described inNote 12, Contingencies).
8

 
**III.** **GOVERNMENTAL ACTIONS**City of St. Louis, et al. v. American Tobacco Company, Inc., et al., Case No.CV-982-09652, Circuit Court, State of Missouri, City of St. Louis (case filed 12/4/98).City of St. Louis and approximately 50 area hospitals seek to recover past and future costsexpended to provide healthcare to Medicaid, medically indigent, and non-paying patientssuffering from tobacco-related illnesses. In June 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.Discovery is ongoing. A hearing is scheduled for February 29, 2008 on defendants’ motion forpartial summary judgment and on plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment precludingdefendants from relitigating issues based on collateral estoppel. Trial is scheduled tocommence on January 11, 2010.Crow Creek Sioux Tribe v. American Tobacco Company, et al., Case No. CV 97-09-082,Tribal Court of the Crow Creek Sioux Tribe, State of South Dakota (case filed 9/26/97).The plaintiffs seek to recover actual and punitive damages, restitution, funding of aclinical cessation program, funding of a corrective public education program anddisgorgement of unjust profits from sales to minors. The plaintiffs claim that thedefendants are liable under the following theories: unlawful marketing and targeting ofminors, contributing to the delinquency of minors, unfair and deceptive acts or practices,unreasonable restraint of trade and unfair methods of competition, negligence, negligenceper se, conspiracy and restitution of unjust enrichment. The case is dormant.**IV.** **THIRD-PARTY PAYOR ACTIONS**General Health Services (Kupat Holim Clalit) v. Philip Morris, Inc., et al., CaseNo. 1571/98, District Court, Israel, Jerusalem (case filed 9/28/98). General HealthServices seeks monetary damages and declaratory and injunctive relief on behalf of itselfand all of its members against the major United States tobacco manufacturers. Motions filedby the defendants are pending before the Israel Supreme Court, seeking appeal from a lowercourt’s decision granting leave to plaintiff for foreign service of process. See Note 12,Contingencies, for a more detailed discussion of the case.
9