b) Other Individual Cases.Bryant v. Philip Morris Incorporated, et al., 50-2008-CA-25429 (AJ), Circuit Courtof the 15th Judicial Circuit, Florida, Palm Beach County (case filed 8/25/08).One individual suing as personal representative of the estate and survivors of a deceasedsmoker.Cowart v. Liggett Group Inc., Case No. 98-01483CA, Circuit Court of the4th Judicial Circuit, Florida, Duval County (case filed 3/16/98). One individualsuing. Liggett is the only tobacco company defendant. The case is dormant.Davis, et al. v. Liggett Group Inc., et al., Case No. 02-48914, Circuit Court of the17th Judicial Circuit, Florida, Broward County (case filed 10/4/02). Liggett isthe only defendant in this action. In April 2004, a jury awarded compensatory damages of$540,000 against Liggett, plus interest. In addition, plaintiff’s counsel was awarded legalfees of $752,000. In October 2007, the compensatory award was affirmed by the FourthDistrict Court of Appeal, but the court certified certain issues to the Florida SupremeCourt, which initially accepted jurisdiction. In December 2008, after oral argument, theFlorida Supreme Court discharged jurisdiction and therefore, the compensatory damage awardis final. In March 2008, the Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed and remanded thelegal fee award for further proceedings in the trial court. The Company has accrued approximately $2,300,000 for this case at December 31, 2008.Diamond v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., et al., Case No. 08-24533 (19), Circuit Courtof the 17thJudicial Circuit, Florida, Broward County (case filed 5/30/08). Oneindividual suing.Grose v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., et al., Case No. 08-38276 (19), Circuit Court ofthe 17th Judicial Circuit, Florida, Broward County (case filed 8/15/08). Oneindividual suing as personal representative of the estate and survivors of a deceasedsmoker.Hikin, et al. v. Philip Morris Incorporated, et al., Case No. 08-57479(19), CircuitCourt of the 17th Judicial Circuit, Florida, Broward County (case filed11/21/08). Two individuals suing.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 were filed by the defendants and arepending.Levine v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, et al., Case No. CL 95-98769 (AH), CircuitCourt of the 15th Judicial Circuit, Florida, Palm Beach County (case filed7/24/96). One individual suing. Plaintiff asserted claims for negligence and strictliability against each defendant and a claim for punitive damages against R.J. Reynolds.Although, plaintiff’s Liggett brand history is limited, a motion for summary judgment wasdenied by the court. The matter is set for trial in April 2009.Meckler, et al. v. Liggett Group Inc., Case No. 97-03949-CA, Circuit Court of the4th Judicial Circuit, Florida, Duval County (case filed 7/10/97). One individualsuing. Liggett is the only tobacco company defendant. The case is dormant.Rawls, et al. v. Liggett Group Inc., Case No. 97-01354 CA, Circuit Court of the4th Judicial Circuit, Florida, Duval County (case filed 3/6/97). One individualsuing. Liggett is the only tobacco company defendant. The case is dormant.
2

 
Spivak v. Philip Morris Incorporated, et al., Case No. 08-19309 (AH), Circuit Courtof the 15th Judicial Circuit, Florida, Palm Beach County (case filed 6/26/08).One individual suing as personal representative of the estate and survivors of a deceasedsmoker.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. Discovery is pending.**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 filed12/4/02). 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.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**Jones, et ux. v. Liggett Group LLC, et al., Case No. 24-X-08-000036, Circuit Courtfor Baltimore City, (case filed 1/18/09). Plaintiff is suing certain cigarette and asbestosmanufacturers for injuries allegedly caused by exposure to cigarette smoke and asbestos.Defendants’ time to respond to the complaint is March 9, 2009.Mueller, Jr. et ux. v. Liggett Group LLC, et al., Case No. 24-X-06-000259, CircuitCourt for Baltimore City, (case filed 10/10/08). One individual, Ada Mueller as personalrepresentative of and surviving spouse of Louis Mueller, is suing certain cigarette andasbestos manufacturers for decedent’s injuries allegedly caused by exposure to cigarettesmoke and asbestos. On January 9, 2009, Liggett filed an Answer and adopted a motion todismiss filed by certain cigarette manufacturing defendants.**Mississippi**Cochran v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, et al., Case No. 2002-0366(3), CircuitCourt, Mississippi, George County (case filed 12/31/02). One individual suing. In August2008, defendants filed a motion to dismiss for failure to prosecute. On October 20, 2008,that motion was denied, without prejudice, with instructions for the parties to confer on acase management order.
3

 
Granger v. B.A.T. Industries, P.L.C., et al., Civil Action No. 3:08- CV -216-HTW-LRA, United States District Court, Southern District of Mississippi, Jackson Division (casefiled 3/5/08). Oneindividual suing. The case was originally filed in the Circuit Court of Copiah County,Mississippi and was removed to Federal Court in April 2008. In May 2008, plaintiff filed amotion to remand the case to state court. The court has stayed the action pending itsdecision on that motion for remand.**Missouri**Nuzum v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corporation, et al., Case No. 03-CV-237237,Circuit Court, Missouri, Jackson County (case filed 5/21/03). Discovery is ongoing. Twoindividuals suing. Trial has been scheduled for October 19, 2009.**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 Courtof New York, Rensselaer County (case filed 9/16/1997). Two individuals suing. A Note ofIssue was served on February 12, 2008. Summary Judgment motions had been filed in May 2008,but the court ordered that the parties revise and brief these motions after the outcome of aCourt of Appeals case, *Rose v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp*. The *Rose*case has now been decided, and defendants are to serve revised summary judgment motions byMarch 23, 2009.Hausrath, et al. v. Philip Morris Inc., et al., Case No. I2001-09526, Supreme Courtof New York, Erie County (case filed 01/24/02). Two individuals 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.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.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. ANote of Issue requesting a trial date is scheduled to be filed on March 27, 2009.
4

 
**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.**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** a) Smoking RelatedBrown, et al. v. American Tobacco Co., Inc., 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. Oral argument is scheduledfor March 3, 2009.Cleary, et al. v. Philip Morris, Inc., et al., Case No. 2000 L004952, Circuit Courtof the State of Illinois, Cook County (case filed 6/3/98). The action was brought on behalfof persons who have allegedly been injured by (1) the defendants’ purported conspiracypursuant to which defendants allegedly concealed material facts regarding the addictivenature of nicotine; (2) the defendants’ alleged acts of targeting their advertising andmarketing to minors; and (3) the defendants’ claimed breach of the public’s right todefendants’ compliance with laws prohibiting the distribution of cigarettes to minors. Theplaintiffs request that the defendants be required to disgorge all profits unjustly receivedthrough their 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, theplaintiffs filed a second amended complaint. In February 2006, a hearing on the defendants’motion to dismiss occurred. The court dismissed count V (public nuisance) and count VI(unjust enrichment) and, although the plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration was granted inpart and denied in part, the court did not revive the plaintiffs’ public nuisance and unjustenrichment claims. In July 2006, the plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification anda class certification hearing was conducted in September 2007. The parties are awaiting adecision.
5

 
Merits discovery was stayed pending a ruling by the court on class certification; classcertification discovery is ongoing. A status conference is scheduled for October 20, 2009.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. Liggett was severed from trial ofthe consolidated action. A conference was held on February 10, 2009 to set a schedulingorder and trial date. For more information on this case, see Note 12. Contingencies.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 case is stayed as a result of bankruptcy petitions filed by three defendants.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 sought 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. In September 2006, the courtcertified a nationwide class of “light” smokers. The defendants appealed the certificationand, in April 2008, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit decertifiedthe class. The case has been remanded to the district court. To date, no furtherproceedings have been held. The time for defendants to respond to the Second AmendedComplaint is April 6, 2009.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.*For moreinformation on the *Scott*case, see Note 12. Contingencies. b) Price FixingSmith, 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 2001and discovery isproceeding. No trial date has been set.**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 40 hospitals (approximately 50 hospitals originallysued, but nine have dismissed their claims with prejudice) seek to recover past and futurecosts expended to provide healthcare to Medicaid, medically indigent, and non-payingpatients suffering from tobacco-related illnesses. In June 2005, the court granteddefendants’ motion for summary judgment as to claims fordamages which accrued prior to November 16, 1993. The claims for damages which accruedafter November 16, 1993 are pending. Discovery is ongoing. Trial is presently scheduled tocommence on January 11, 2010, but, on February 10, 2009, the Court heard argument regardingthe resetting of the trial date to sometime later in 2010.
6

 
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. For moreinformation on the *General Health Services*case, see Note 12. Contingencies.National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare, et al. v. Philip MorrisUSA, Inc., et al., 1:08-CV-02021-RJD-JO, USDC, Eastern District of New York (case filed5/20/08). Plaintiffs filed this action pursuant to the Medicare as Secondary Payer (“MSP”)statute to recover for Medicare expenditures made from May 21, 2002 to the present.Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss and Plaintiffs’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment were filedin July 2008 and have been fully briefed. A hearing on the motions was held on November 20,2008 and the parties are awaiting a decision.
7