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. Plaintiff asserted claims for negligence and strict liability againsteach defendant and a claim for punitive damages against R.J. Reynolds. Although,plaintiff’s Liggett brand history is limited, a motion for summary judgment was denied bythe court. It is likely the matter will be set for trial in the fourth quarter of 2008 orfirst quarter of 2009.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 $24,860,000. The jury found Liggett 50% responsible. Theplaintiff requested that the court enter partial judgment in this matter, award attorneys’fees and costs and schedule a trial on punitive damages. A hearing on plaintiff’s motion toenter final judgment occurred on March 15, 2007. A further hearing on that motion isexpected to be scheduled in July 2008. See Note 8. Contingencies, for a more detaileddiscussion 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**Russ, et al., v. John Crane-Houdaille, Inc., et al., Case No. 24-X-07-000430,Circuit Court for Baltimore City (case filed 10/15/07). Plaintiffs are suing individually andas the Personal Representatives of the Estate of Jack Russ. On March 26, 2008, Liggett filedan Answer and Motion to Dismiss or Sever.**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.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). One individual suing. The case was originally filed in the Circuit Court ofCopiah County, Mississippi, and was removed to Federal Court on April 4, 2008.**Missouri**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 Courtof New York, Rensselaer County (case filed 9/16/1997). Two individuals suing. Note ofIssue was served on February 12, 2008. The pre-trial conference, originally scheduled forMarch 2008, has been adjourned until the summary judgment motions are decided.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. Trial is scheduledto commence on September 8, 2008.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.Robare v. Fortune Brands, Inc. f/k/a American Brands, Inc., et al., Case No.0139/08, Supreme Court of New York, Clinton County (case filed 2/19/08). One individualsuing. The complaint was dismissed on April 15, 2008. On April 28, 2008, plaintiff *pro se*filed a notice of appeal.
3

 
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.**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. 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
4

 
March 2005, the court granted the defendants’ motion. In May 2005, the plaintiffs appealed.In September 2006, the California Court of Appeal affirmed the order decertifying theclass. In October 2006, the plaintiffs filed a petition for review with the CaliforniaSupreme Court. The petition for review was granted in November 2006. The parties areawaiting a date for oral argument on the petition.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). In April 2006, the plaintiffs filed a motion to reconsider certain ofthe findings in the court’s ruling on defendants’ motion to dismiss counts V and VI of theplaintiffs’ second amended complaint. The plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration wasgranted in part and denied in part. The court merely reconsidered certain components of itsanalysis, but did not modify its original decision, stating that reconsideration would notrevive the plaintiffs’ public nuisance and unjust enrichment claims because the plaintiffsstill cannot allege a special or separate harm. In July 2006, the plaintiffs filed a motionfor class certification. A case management conference was held in August 2006, and thecourt entered a Case Management Order. The court ordered an extensive discovery scheduleculminating in a supplemental briefing schedule (in June-August 2007) on class certificationissues, and a class certification hearing was conducted in September 2007. The parties areawaiting a decision. Merits discovery was stayed pending a ruling by the court on classcertification.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. A judgment for compensatory andpunitive damages was entered in November 2000. The judgment was reversed in its entirety byan intermediate appellate court in May 2003. In July 2006, 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. As a result, thousands of individual cases havebeen filed in both state and federal courts in Florida. See I. Individual Smoker Cases —Engle Progeny Cases, above and Note 8. Contingencies, for a more detailed discussion.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.
5

 
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 trial of the consolidated action.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. InSeptember 2006, the Oregon Court of Appeals upheld the trial court’s decision. In December2006, plaintiffs petitioned the Oregon Supreme Court to review the decision, and in April2008, the Oregon Supreme Court affirmed the appellate court’s 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 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. See Note 8. Contingencies, for a more detailed discussion of the case.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,
6

 
though not themselves cigarette smokers, have been exposed to secondhand smoke fromcigarettes which were manufactured by the defendants, and who suffered injury as a result ofthat exposure. The plaintiffs seek to recover an unspecified amount of compensatory andpunitive damages. In October 2004, the trial court stayed this case pending the outcome ofthe appeal in *Scott v. American Tobacco Co., Inc.*(as described in Note 8. Contingencies).**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 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 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 pending. Discoveryis ongoing. Oral argument has been scheduled for September 3, 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., Case No.1571/98, District Court, Israel, Jerusalem (case filed 9/28/98). General Health Services seeksmonetary damages and declaratory and injunctive relief on behalf of itself and all of itsmembers against the major United States tobacco manufacturers. Motions filed by the defendantsare pending before the Israel Supreme Court, seeking appeal from a lower court’s decisiongranting leave to plaintiff for foreign service of process. See Note 8. Contingencies, for amore detailed discussion of the case.
7