Legal proceedings covering a wide range of matters are pending or threatened against us, and/or our subsidiaries, and/or our indemnitees in various jurisdictions. Our indemnitees include distributors, licensees, and others that have been named as parties in certain cases and that we have agreed to defend, as well as to pay costs and some or all of judgments, if any, that may be entered against them. Pursuant to the terms of the Distribution Agreement between Altria Group, Inc. ("Altria") and PMI, PMI will indemnify Altria and Philip Morris USA Inc. ("PM USA"), a U.S. tobacco subsidiary of Altria, for tobacco product claims based in substantial part on products manufactured by PMI or contract manufactured for PMI by PM USA, and PM USA will indemnify PMI for tobacco product claims based in substantial part on products manufactured by PM USA, excluding tobacco products contract manufactured for PMI.

Damages claimed in some of the tobacco-related litigation are significant and, in certain cases in Brazil, Canada and Nigeria, range into the billions of U.S. dollars. The variability in pleadings in multiple jurisdictions, together with the actual experience of management in litigating claims, demonstrate that the monetary relief that may be specified in a lawsuit bears little relevance to the ultimate outcome. Much of the tobacco-related litigation is in its early stages, and litigation is subject to uncertainty. However, as discussed below, we have to date been largely successful in defending tobacco-related litigation.

We and our subsidiaries record provisions in the consolidated financial statements for pending litigation when we determine that an unfavorable outcome is probable and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. At the present time, except as stated otherwise in this Note 18. Contingencies, while it is reasonably possible that an unfavorable outcome in a case may occur, after assessing the information available to it (i) management has not concluded that it is probable that a loss has been incurred in any of the pending tobacco-related cases; (ii) management is unable to estimate the possible loss or range of loss for any of the pending tobacco-related cases; and (iii) accordingly, no estimated loss has been accrued in the consolidated financial statements for unfavorable outcomes in these cases, if any. Legal defense costs are expensed as incurred.

It is possible that our consolidated results of operations, cash flows or financial position could be materially affected in a particular fiscal quarter or fiscal year by an unfavorable outcome or settlement of certain pending litigation. Nevertheless, although litigation is subject to uncertainty, we and each of our subsidiaries named as a defendant believe, and each has been so advised by counsel handling the respective cases, that we have valid defenses to the litigation pending against us, as well as valid bases for appeal of adverse verdicts. All such cases are, and will continue to be, vigorously defended. However, we and our subsidiaries may enter into settlement discussions in particular cases if we believe it is in our best interests to do so.

As a result of the Court of Appeal of Quebec’s decision in both the Létourneau and Blais cases described below, our subsidiary, Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc. (“RBH”), and the other defendants, JTI Macdonald Corp., and Imperial Tobacco Canada Limited, sought protection in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (“CCAA”) on March 22, March 8, and March 12, 2019, respectively. CCAA is a Canadian federal law that permits a Canadian business to restructure its affairs while carrying on its business in the ordinary course. The initial CCAA order made by the Ontario Superior Court on March 22, 2019 authorizes RBH to pay all expenses incurred in carrying on its business in the ordinary course after the CCAA filing, including obligations to employees, vendors, and suppliers. RBH's financial results have been deconsolidated from our consolidated financial statements since March 22, 2019. As part of the CCAA proceedings, there is currently a comprehensive stay up to and including March 29, 2024 of all tobacco-related litigation pending in Canada against RBH and the other defendants, including PMI and our indemnitees (PM USA and Altria), namely, the smoking and health class actions filed in various Canadian provinces and health care cost recovery actions. These proceedings are presented below under the caption “Stayed Litigation — Canada.” Ernst & Young Inc. has been appointed as monitor of RBH in the CCAA proceedings. In accordance with the CCAA process, as the parties work towards a plan of arrangement or compromise in a confidential mediation, it is anticipated that the court will set additional hearings and further extend the stay of proceedings. On April 17, 2019, the Ontario Superior Court ruled that RBH and the other defendants will not be allowed to file an application to the Supreme Court of Canada for leave to appeal the Court of Appeal’s decision in the Létourneau and the Blais cases so long as the comprehensive stay of all tobacco-related litigation in Canada remains in effect and that the time period to file the application would be extended by the stay period. While RBH believes that the findings of liability and damages in both Létourneau and the Blais cases were incorrect, the CCAA proceedings will provide a forum for RBH to seek resolution through a plan of arrangement or compromise of all tobacco-related litigation pending in Canada. It is not possible to predict the resolution of the underlying legal proceedings or the length of the CCAA process.

In the first class action pending in Canada, Conseil Québécois Sur Le Tabac Et La Santé and Jean-Yves Blais v. Imperial Tobacco Canada Ltd., Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc. and JTI-Macdonald Corp., Quebec Superior Court, Canada, filed in November 1998, RBH and other Canadian cigarette manufacturers (Imperial Tobacco Canada Ltd. and JTI-Macdonald Corp.) are defendants. The plaintiffs, an anti-smoking organization and an individual smoker, sought compensatory and punitive damages for each member of the class who suffers allegedly from certain smoking-related diseases. The class was certified in 2005. The trial court issued its judgment on May 27, 2015. The trial court found RBH and two other Canadian manufacturers liable and found that the class members’ compensatory damages totaled approximately CAD 15.5 billion (approximately $11.5 billion), including pre-judgment interest. The trial court awarded compensatory damages on a joint and several liability basis, allocating 20% to our subsidiary (approximately CAD 3.1 billion (approximately $2.3 billion) including pre-judgment interest). In addition, the trial court awarded CAD 90,000 (approximately $67,000) in punitive damages, allocating CAD 30,000 (approximately $22,000) to RBH. The trial court estimated the disease class at 99,957 members. RBH appealed to the Court of Appeal of Quebec. In October 2015, the Court of Appeal ordered RBH to furnish security totaling CAD 226 million (approximately $167 million) to cover both the Létourneau and Blais cases, which RBH has paid in installments through March 2017. The Court of Appeal ordered Imperial Tobacco Canada Ltd. to furnish security totaling CAD 758 million (approximately $561 million) in installments through June 2017. JTI Macdonald Corp. was not required to furnish security in accordance with plaintiffs’ motion. The Court of Appeal ordered that the security is payable upon a final judgment of the Court of Appeal affirming the trial court’s judgment or upon further order of the Court of Appeal.

On March 1, 2019, the Court of Appeal issued a decision largely affirming the trial court’s findings of liability and the compensatory and punitive damages award while reducing the total amount of compensatory damages to approximately CAD 13.5 billion (approximately $10 billion), including interest due to the trial court’s error in the calculation of interest. The compensatory damages award is on a joint and several basis with an allocation of 20% to RBH (approximately CAD 2.7 billion (approximately $2 billion), including pre-judgment interest). The Court of Appeal upheld the trial court’s findings that defendants violated the Civil Code of Quebec, the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms, and the Quebec Consumer Protection Act by failing to warn adequately of the dangers of smoking and by conspiring to prevent consumers from learning of the dangers of smoking. The Court of Appeal further held that the plaintiffs either need not prove, or had adequately proven, that these faults were a cause of the class members’ injuries. In accordance with the judgment, defendants were required to deposit their respective portions of the damages awarded in

both the Létourneau case described below and the Blais case, approximately CAD 1.1 billion (approximately $813 million), into trust accounts within 60 days. RBH’s share of the deposit was approximately CAD 257 million (approximately $194 million). PMI recorded a pre-tax charge of $194 million in its consolidated results, representing $142 million net of tax, as tobacco litigation-related expense, in the first quarter of 2019. The charge reflects PMI’s assessment of the portion of the judgment that represents probable and estimable loss prior to the deconsolidation of RBH and corresponds to the trust account deposit required by the judgment.

In the second class action pending in Canada, Cecilia Létourneau v. Imperial Tobacco Ltd., Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc. and JTI-Macdonald Corp., Quebec Superior Court, Canada, filed in September 1998, RBH and other Canadian cigarette manufacturers (Imperial Tobacco Canada Ltd. and JTI-Macdonald Corp.) are defendants. The plaintiff, an individual smoker, sought compensatory and punitive damages for each member of the class who is deemed addicted to smoking. The class was certified in 2005. The trial court issued its judgment on May 27, 2015. The trial court found RBH and two other Canadian manufacturers liable and awarded a total of CAD 131 million (approximately $97 million) in punitive damages, allocating CAD 46 million (approximately $34 million) to RBH. The trial court estimated the size of the addiction class at 918,000 members but declined to award compensatory damages to the addiction class because the evidence did not establish the claims with sufficient accuracy. The trial court found that a claims process to allocate the awarded punitive damages to individual class members would be too expensive and difficult to administer. On March 1, 2019, the Court of Appeal issued a decision largely affirming the trial court’s findings of liability and the total amount of punitive damages awarded allocating CAD 57 million (approximately $42 million), including interest to RBH. See the Blais description above for further detail concerning the security order pertaining to both Létourneau and Blais cases and the impact of the decision on PMI’s financial statements.

In the third class action pending in Canada, Kunta v. Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers' Council, et al., The Queen's Bench, Winnipeg, Canada, filed June 12, 2009, we, RBH, and our indemnitees (PM USA and Altria), and other members of the industry are defendants. The plaintiff, an individual smoker, alleges her own addiction to tobacco products and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (“COPD”), severe asthma, and mild reversible lung disease resulting from the use of tobacco products. She is seeking compensatory and punitive damages on behalf of a proposed class comprised of all smokers, their estates, dependents and family members, as well as restitution of profits, and reimbursement of government health care costs allegedly caused by tobacco products.

In the fourth class action pending in Canada, Adams v. Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers' Council, et al., The Queen's Bench, Saskatchewan, Canada, filed July 10, 2009, we, RBH, and our indemnitees (PM USA and Altria), and other members of the industry are defendants. The plaintiff, an individual smoker, alleges her own addiction to tobacco products and COPD resulting from the use of tobacco products. She is seeking compensatory and punitive damages on behalf of a proposed class comprised of all smokers who have smoked a minimum of 25,000 cigarettes and have allegedly suffered, or suffer, from COPD, emphysema, heart disease, or cancer, as well as restitution of profits.

In the fifth class action pending in Canada, Semple v. Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers' Council, et al., The Supreme Court (trial court), Nova Scotia, Canada, filed June 18, 2009, we, RBH, and our indemnitees (PM USA and Altria), and other members of the industry are defendants. The plaintiff, an individual smoker, alleges his own addiction to tobacco products and COPD resulting from the use of tobacco products. He is seeking compensatory and punitive damages on behalf of a proposed class comprised of all smokers, their estates, dependents and family members, as well as restitution of profits, and reimbursement of government health care costs allegedly caused by tobacco products.

In the sixth class action pending in Canada, Dorion v. Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers' Council, et al., The Queen's Bench, Alberta, Canada, filed June 15, 2009, we, RBH, and our indemnitees (PM USA and Altria), and other members of the industry are defendants. The plaintiff, an individual smoker, alleges her own addiction to tobacco products and chronic bronchitis and severe sinus infections resulting from the use of tobacco products. She is seeking compensatory and punitive damages on behalf of a proposed class comprised of all smokers, their estates, dependents and family members, restitution of profits, and reimbursement of government health care costs allegedly caused by tobacco products. To date, we, our subsidiaries, and our indemnitees have not been properly served with the complaint.

In the seventh class action pending in Canada, McDermid v. Imperial Tobacco Canada Limited, et al., Supreme Court, British Columbia, Canada, filed June 25, 2010, we, RBH, and our indemnitees (PM USA and Altria), and other members of the industry are defendants. The plaintiff, an individual smoker, alleges his own addiction to tobacco products and heart disease resulting from the use of tobacco products. He is seeking compensatory and punitive damages on behalf of a proposed class comprised of all smokers who were alive on June 12, 2007, and who suffered from heart disease allegedly caused by smoking, their estates, dependents and family members, plus disgorgement of revenues earned by the defendants from January 1, 1954, to the date the claim was filed.

In the eighth class action pending in Canada, Bourassa v. Imperial Tobacco Canada Limited, et al., Supreme Court, British Columbia, Canada, filed June 25, 2010, we, RBH, and our indemnitees (PM USA and Altria), and other members of the industry are defendants. The plaintiff, the heir to a deceased smoker, alleges that the decedent was addicted to tobacco products and suffered from emphysema resulting from the use of tobacco products. She is seeking compensatory and punitive damages on behalf of a proposed class comprised of all smokers who were alive on June 12, 2007, and who suffered from chronic respiratory diseases allegedly caused by smoking, their estates, dependents and family members, plus disgorgement of revenues earned by the defendants from January 1, 1954, to the date the claim was filed. In December 2014, plaintiff filed an amended statement of claim.

In the ninth class action pending in Canada, Suzanne Jacklin v. Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers' Council, et al., Ontario Superior Court of Justice, filed June 20, 2012, we, RBH, and our indemnitees (PM USA and Altria), and other members of the industry are defendants. The plaintiff, an individual smoker, alleges her own addiction to tobacco products and COPD resulting from the use of tobacco products. She is seeking compensatory and punitive damages on behalf of a proposed class comprised of all smokers who have smoked a minimum of 25,000 cigarettes and have allegedly suffered, or suffer, from COPD, heart disease, or cancer, as well as restitution of profits.

In the first health care cost recovery case pending in Canada, Her Majesty the Queen in Right of British Columbia v. Imperial Tobacco Limited, et al., Supreme Court, British Columbia, Vancouver Registry, Canada, filed January 24, 2001, we, RBH, our indemnitee (PM USA), and other members of the industry are defendants. The plaintiff, the government of the province of British Columbia, brought a claim based upon legislation enacted by the province authorizing the government to file a direct action against cigarette manufacturers to recover the health care costs it has incurred, and will incur, resulting from a “tobacco related wrong.”

In the second health care cost recovery case filed in Canada, Her Majesty the Queen in Right of New Brunswick v. Rothmans Inc., et al., Court of Queen's Bench of New Brunswick, Trial Court, New Brunswick, Fredericton, Canada, filed March 13, 2008, we, RBH, our indemnitees (PM USA and Altria), and other members of the industry are defendants. The claim was filed by the government of the province of New Brunswick based on legislation enacted in the province. This legislation is similar to the law introduced in British Columbia that authorizes the government to file a direct action against cigarette manufacturers to recover the health care costs it has incurred, and will incur, as a result of a “tobacco related wrong.”

In the third health care cost recovery case filed in Canada, Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario v. Rothmans Inc., et al., Ontario Superior Court of Justice, Toronto, Canada, filed September 29, 2009, we, RBH, our indemnitees (PM USA and Altria), and other members of the industry are defendants. The claim was filed by the government of the province of Ontario based on legislation enacted in the province. This legislation is similar to the laws introduced in British Columbia and New Brunswick that authorize the government to file a direct action against cigarette manufacturers to recover the health care costs it has incurred, and will incur, as a result of a “tobacco related wrong.”

In the fourth health care cost recovery case filed in Canada, Attorney General of Newfoundland and Labrador v. Rothmans Inc., et al., Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador, St. Johns, Canada, filed February 8, 2011, we, RBH, our indemnitees (PM USA and Altria), and other members of the industry are defendants. The claim was filed by the government of the province of Newfoundland and Labrador based on legislation enacted in the province that is similar to the laws introduced in British Columbia, New Brunswick and Ontario. The legislation authorizes the government to file a direct action against cigarette manufacturers to recover the health care costs it has incurred, and will incur, as a result of a “tobacco related wrong.”

In the fifth health care cost recovery case filed in Canada, Attorney General of Quebec v. Imperial Tobacco Limited, et al., Superior Court of Quebec, Canada, filed June 8, 2012, we, RBH, our indemnitee (PM USA), and other members of the industry are defendants. The claim was filed by the government of the province of Quebec based on legislation enacted in the province that is similar to the laws enacted in several other Canadian provinces. The legislation authorizes the government to file a direct action against cigarette manufacturers to recover the health care costs it has incurred, and will incur, as a result of a “tobacco related wrong.”

In the sixth health care cost recovery case filed in Canada, Her Majesty in Right of Alberta v. Altria Group, Inc., et al., Supreme Court of Queen's Bench Alberta, Canada, filed June 8, 2012, we, RBH, our indemnitees (PM USA and Altria), and other members of the industry are defendants. The claim was filed by the government of the province of Alberta based on legislation enacted in the province that is similar to the laws enacted in several other Canadian provinces. The legislation authorizes the government to file a direct action against cigarette manufacturers to recover the health care costs it has incurred, and will incur, as a result of a “tobacco related wrong.”

In the eighth health care cost recovery case filed in Canada, The Government of Saskatchewan v. Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc., et al., Queen's Bench, Judicial Centre of Saskatchewan, Canada, filed June 8, 2012, we, RBH, our indemnitees (PM USA and Altria), and other members of the industry are defendants. The claim was filed by the government of the province of Saskatchewan based on legislation enacted in the province that is similar to the laws enacted in several other Canadian provinces. The legislation authorizes the government to file a direct action against cigarette manufacturers to recover the health care costs it has incurred, and will incur, as a result of a “tobacco related wrong.”

In the ninth health care cost recovery case filed in Canada, Her Majesty the Queen in Right of the Province of Prince Edward Island v. Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc., et al., Supreme Court of Prince Edward Island (General Section), Canada, filed September 10, 2012, we, RBH, our indemnitees (PM USA and Altria), and other members of the industry are defendants. The claim was filed by the government of the province of Prince Edward Island based on legislation enacted in the province that is similar to the laws enacted in several other Canadian provinces. The legislation authorizes the government to file a direct action against cigarette manufacturers to recover the health care costs it has incurred, and will incur, as a result of a “tobacco related wrong.”

In the tenth health care cost recovery case filed in Canada, Her Majesty the Queen in Right of the Province of Nova Scotia v. Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc., et al., Supreme Court of Nova Scotia, Canada, filed January 2, 2015, we, RBH, our indemnitees (PM USA and Altria), and other members of the industry are defendants. The claim was filed by the government of the province of Nova Scotia based on legislation enacted in the province that is similar to the laws enacted in several other Canadian provinces. The legislation authorizes the government to file a direct action against cigarette manufacturers to recover the health care costs it has incurred, and will incur, as a result of a “tobacco related wrong.”

Date

Location of
Court/Name of
Plaintiff

Type of
Case

Verdict

Post-Trial
Developments

May 27, 2015

Canada/Conseil Québécois Sur Le Tabac Et La Santé and Jean-Yves Blais

Class Action

On May 27, 2015, the Superior Court of the District of Montreal, Province of Quebec ruled in favor of the Blais class on liability and found the class members’ compensatory damages totaled approximately CAD 15.5 billion (approximately $11.5 billion), including pre-judgment interest. The trial court awarded compensatory damages on a joint and several liability basis, allocating 20% to our subsidiary (approximately CAD 3.1 billion including pre-judgment interest (approximately $2.3 billion)). The trial court awarded CAD 90,000 (approximately $67,000) in punitive damages, allocating CAD 30,000 (approximately $22,000) to our subsidiary. The trial court ordered defendants to pay CAD 1 billion (approximately $740 million) of the compensatory damage award, CAD 200 million (approximately $148 million) of which is our subsidiary’s portion, into a trust within 60 days.

In June 2015, RBH commenced the appellate process with the Court of Appeal of Quebec. On March 1, 2019, the Court of Appeal issued a decision largely affirming the trial court's decision. (See “Stayed Litigation — Canada” for further detail.)

Date

Location of
Court/Name of
Plaintiff

Type of
Case

Verdict

Post-Trial
Developments

May 27, 2015

Canada/Cecilia Létourneau

Class Action

On May 27, 2015, the Superior Court of the District of Montreal, Province of Quebec ruled in favor of the Létourneau class on liability and awarded a total of CAD 131 million (approximately $97 million) in punitive damages, allocating CAD 46 million (approximately $34 million) to RBH. The trial court ordered defendants to pay the full punitive damage award into a trust within 60 days. The court did not order the payment of compensatory damages.

Date

Location of
Court/Name of
Plaintiff

Type of
Case

Verdict

Post-Trial
Developments

August 5, 2016

Argentina/Hugo Lespada

Individual Action

On August 5, 2016, the Civil Court No. 14 - Mar del Plata, issued a verdict in favor of plaintiff, an individual smoker, and awarded him ARS 110,000 (approximately $133), plus interest, in compensatory and moral damages. The trial court found that our subsidiary failed to warn plaintiff of the risk of becoming addicted to cigarettes.

On August 23, 2016, our subsidiary filed its notice of appeal. On October 31, 2017, the Civil and Commercial Court of Appeals of Mar del Plata ruled that plaintiff's claim was barred by the statute of limitations and it reversed the trial court's decision. On May 17, 2021, plaintiff filed a federal extraordinary appeal. On November 1, 2021, the Supreme Court of the Province of Buenos Aires dismissed plaintiff's federal extraordinary appeal. On November 10, 2021, plaintiff filed a direct appeal before the Federal Supreme Court.

Date

Location of
Court/Name of
Plaintiff

Type of
Case

Verdict

Post-Trial
Developments

June 17, 2021

Argentina/Claudia Milano

Individual Action

On June 17, 2021, the Civil Court No. 9 - Mar del Plata, issued a verdict in favor of plaintiff, an individual smoker, and awarded her smoking cessation treatments, ARS 150,000 (approximately $181), in compensatory and moral damages, and ARS 4,000,000 (approximately $4,825) in punitive damages, plus interest and costs. The trial court found that our subsidiary failed to warn plaintiff of the risk of becoming addicted to cigarettes.

On July 2, 2021, our subsidiary filed its notice of appeal. In addition, plaintiff filed an appeal challenging the dismissal of the claim for psychological damages. As required by local law, our subsidiary deposited the damages awarded, plus interest and costs, in total ARS 6,114,428 (approximately $7,375), into a court escrow account. Our subsidiary challenged the amount determined by the court. The Civil and Commercial Court of Appeals of Mar del Plata granted our subsidiary's challenge to the escrow amount determined by the trial court. As a result, on December 16, 2021, ARS 893,428 (approximately $1,078) was returned to our subsidiary. If our subsidiary ultimately prevails, the remaining deposited amounts will be returned to our subsidiary. On May 31, 2022, the Civil and Commercial Court of Appeals of Mar del Plata ruled that the statute of limitations barred plaintiff's claim and reversed the trial court's decision. On June 15, 2022, plaintiff filed an extraordinary appeal.

Date

Location of
Court/Name of
Plaintiff

Type of
Case

Verdict

Post-Trial
Developments

June 23, 2023

Turkey/ Senem Yilmazel

Individual Action

On June 23, 2023, the Ankara Consumer Court published its decision in favor of plaintiff, the daughter of an individual smoker, against our subsidiary and a BAT subsidiary, awarding her TRY 10,000 (approximately $327) in damages. The trial court found that the plaintiff’s father died as a result of lung cancer and COPD caused by his cigarette consumption.

On September 8, 2023, our subsidiary filed its appeal. On September 25, 2023, the plaintiff filed an appeal challenging the damages amount determined by the court.

Smoking and Health Litigation: These cases primarily allege personal injury and are brought by individual plaintiffs or on behalf of a class or purported class of individual plaintiffs. Plaintiffs' allegations of liability in these cases are based on various theories of recovery, including negligence, gross negligence, strict liability, fraud, misrepresentation, design defect, failure to warn, breach of express and implied warranties, violations of deceptive trade practice laws and consumer protection statutes. Plaintiffs in these cases seek various forms of relief, including compensatory and other damages, and injunctive and equitable relief. Defenses raised in these cases include licit activity, failure to state a claim, lack of defect, lack of proximate cause, assumption of the risk, contributory negligence, and statute of limitations.

Health Care Cost Recovery Litigation: These cases, brought by governmental and non-governmental plaintiffs, seek reimbursement of health care cost expenditures allegedly caused by tobacco products. Plaintiffs' allegations of liability in these cases are based on various theories of recovery including unjust enrichment, negligence, negligent design, strict liability, breach of express and implied warranties, violation of a voluntary undertaking or special duty, fraud, negligent misrepresentation, conspiracy, public nuisance, defective product, failure to warn, sale of cigarettes to minors, and claims under statutes governing competition and deceptive trade practices. Plaintiffs in these cases seek various forms of relief including compensatory and other damages, and injunctive and equitable relief. Defenses raised in these cases include lack of proximate cause, remoteness of injury, failure to state a claim, adequate remedy at law, “unclean hands” (namely, that plaintiffs cannot obtain equitable relief because they participated in, and benefited from, the sale of cigarettes), and statute of limitations.

In the first health care cost recovery case in Nigeria, The Attorney General of Lagos State v. British American Tobacco (Nigeria) Limited, et al., High Court of Lagos State, Lagos, Nigeria, filed March 13, 2008, we and other members of the industry are defendants. Plaintiff seeks reimbursement for the cost of treating alleged smoking-related diseases for the past 20 years, payment of anticipated costs of treating alleged smoking-related diseases for the next 20 years, various forms of injunctive relief, plus punitive damages. We are in the process of making challenges to service and the court's jurisdiction. Currently, the case is stayed in the trial court pending the appeals of certain co-defendants relating to service objections.

In the second health care cost recovery case in Nigeria, The Attorney General of Kano State v. British American Tobacco (Nigeria) Limited, et al., High Court of Kano State, Kano, Nigeria, filed May 9, 2007, we and other members of the industry are defendants. Plaintiff seeks reimbursement for the cost of treating alleged smoking-related diseases for the past 20 years, payment of anticipated costs of treating alleged smoking-related diseases for the next 20 years, various forms of injunctive relief, plus punitive damages. We are in the process of challenging the court's jurisdiction. Currently, the case is stayed in the trial court pending the appeals of certain co-defendants relating to service objections.

In the third health care cost recovery case in Nigeria, The Attorney General of Gombe State v. British American Tobacco (Nigeria) Limited, et al., High Court of Gombe State, Gombe, Nigeria, filed October 17, 2008, we and other members of the industry are defendants. Plaintiff seeks reimbursement for the cost of treating alleged smoking-related diseases for the past 20 years, payment of anticipated costs of treating alleged smoking-related diseases for the next 20 years, various forms of injunctive relief, plus punitive damages. In February 2011, the court ruled that the plaintiff had not complied with the procedural steps necessary to serve us. As a result of this ruling, plaintiff must re-serve its claim. We have not yet been re-served.

In the fourth health care cost recovery case in Nigeria, The Attorney General of Oyo State, et al., v. British American Tobacco (Nigeria) Limited, et al., High Court of Oyo State, Ibadan, Nigeria, filed May 25, 2007, we and other members of the industry are defendants. Plaintiffs seek reimbursement for the cost of treating alleged smoking-related diseases for the past 20 years, payment of anticipated costs of treating alleged smoking-related diseases for the next 20 years, various forms of injunctive relief, plus punitive damages. We challenged service as improper. In June 2010, the court ruled that plaintiffs did not have leave to serve the writ of summons on the defendants and that they must re-serve the writ. We have not yet been re-served.

In the fifth health care cost recovery case in Nigeria, The Attorney General of Ogun State v. British American Tobacco (Nigeria) Limited, et al., High Court of Ogun State, Abeokuta, Nigeria, filed February 26, 2008, we and other members of the industry are defendants. Plaintiff seeks reimbursement for the cost of treating alleged smoking-related diseases for the past 20 years, payment of anticipated costs of treating alleged smoking-related diseases for the next 20 years, various forms of injunctive relief, plus punitive damages. In May 2010, the trial court rejected our objections to the court's jurisdiction. We have appealed. Currently, the case is stayed in the trial court pending the appeals of certain co-defendants relating to service objections.

In the health care cost recovery case in Korea, the National Health Insurance Service v. KT&G, et. al., filed April 14, 2014, our subsidiary and other Korean manufacturers are defendants. Plaintiff alleges that defendants concealed the health hazards of smoking, marketed to youth, added ingredients to make their products more harmful and addictive, and misled consumers into believing that Lights cigarettes are safer than regular cigarettes. The National Health Insurance Service seeks to recover damages allegedly incurred in treating 3,484 patients with small cell lung cancer, squamous cell lung cancer, and squamous cell laryngeal cancer from 2003 to 2012. The trial court dismissed the case in its entirety on November 20, 2020. The Appellate court granted the Plaintiff a de novo appeal in 2021 and determined that the appellate proceedings will take place in stages: wrongful conduct/product defect allegations first, then causation and finally issues such as standing/direct action.

Label-Related Cases: These cases, now brought only by individual plaintiffs, allege that the use of the descriptor “Lights” or other alleged misrepresentations or omissions of labeling information constitute fraudulent and misleading conduct. Plaintiffs' allegations of liability in these cases are based on various theories of recovery including misrepresentation, deception, and breach of consumer protection laws. Plaintiffs seek various forms of relief including restitution, injunctive relief, and compensatory and other damages. Defenses raised include lack of causation, lack of reliance, assumption of the risk, and statute of limitations.

Public Civil Actions: Claims have been filed either by an individual, or a public or private entity, seeking to protect collective or individual rights, such as the right to health, the right to information or the right to safety. Plaintiffs' allegations of liability in these cases are based on various theories of recovery including product defect, concealment, and misrepresentation. Plaintiffs in these cases seek various forms of relief including injunctive relief such as banning cigarettes, descriptors, smoking in certain places and advertising, as well as implementing communication campaigns and reimbursement of medical expenses incurred by public or private institutions.

In a public civil action in Venezuela, Federation of Consumers and Users Associations (“FEVACU”), et al. v. National Assembly of Venezuela and the Venezuelan Ministry of Health, Constitutional Chamber of the Venezuelan Supreme Court, filed April 29, 2008, we were not named as a defendant, but the plaintiffs published a notice pursuant to court order, notifying all interested parties to appear in the case. In January 2009, our subsidiary appeared in the case in response to this notice. The plaintiffs purport to represent the right to health of the citizens of Venezuela and claim that the government failed to protect adequately its citizens' right to health. The claim asks the court to order the government to enact stricter regulations on the manufacture and sale of tobacco products. In addition, the plaintiffs ask the court to order companies involved in the tobacco industry to allocate a percentage of their “sales or benefits” to establish a fund to pay for the health care costs of treating smoking-related diseases. In October 2008, the court ruled that plaintiffs have standing to file the claim and that the claim meets the threshold admissibility requirements. In December 2012, the court admitted our subsidiary and a subsidiary of British American Tobacco plc as interested third parties. In February 2013, our subsidiary answered the complaint.

U.S. Government Matter: The U.S. government has contacted Altria and PM USA in connection with an agreement between PMI and Altria to end their commercial relationship with respect to Platform 1 in the U.S. as of April 30, 2024 (“Altria Agreement"). Altria and PM USA are parties to a 2006 order in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia holding that they violated the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“2006 Order”). PMI was not a defendant in that proceeding. The 2006 Order imposed injunctive relief on defendants including, but not limited to, enjoining false, misleading, or deceptive statements concerning cigarettes; prohibiting express or implied health statements for any cigarette brand; and requiring defendants to make certain corrective statements at point-of sale and on websites. The 2006 Order also imposed restrictions on defendants from selling or transferring their cigarette brands, brand names, cigarette product formulas or cigarette businesses without the transferee submitting to the jurisdiction of the court and subjecting itself to the 2006 Order as of the date of sale or transfer. The U.S. government has informed Altria that it believes the transaction contemplated by the Altria Agreement falls within the scope of this provision and that, before it can be effectuated, PMI must submit to the 2006 Order. While we do not know the specific relief the U.S. government may seek from the court, we believe that there are strong arguments as to why the provision cited by the U.S. government is inapplicable to the Altria Agreement.

The Department of Special Investigations of the government of Thailand ("DSI") conducted an investigation into alleged underpayment by our subsidiary, Philip Morris (Thailand) Limited ("PM Thailand"), of customs duties and excise taxes relating to imports from the Philippines covering the period 2003-2007. On January 18, 2016, the Public Prosecutor filed charges against our subsidiary and seven former and current employees in the Bangkok Criminal Court alleging that PM Thailand and the individual defendants jointly and with the intention to defraud the Thai government, under-declared import prices of cigarettes to avoid full payment of taxes and duties in connection with import entries of cigarettes from the Philippines during the period of July 2003 to June 2006. The government sought a fine of approximately THB 80.8 billion (approximately $2.3 billion). In May 2017, Thailand enacted a new customs act. The new act, which took effect in November 2017, substantially limits the amount of fines that Thailand could seek in these proceedings. PM Thailand believes that its declared import prices are in compliance with the Customs Valuation Agreement of the World Trade Organization and Thai law and that the allegations of the Public Prosecutor are inconsistent with several decisions already taken by Thai Customs and other Thai governmental agencies. Trial in the case began in November 2017 and concluded in September 2019. In November 2019, the trial court found our subsidiary guilty of under-declaration of the prices and imposed a fine of approximately THB 1.2 billion (approximately $33.5 million). The trial court dismissed all charges against the individual defendants. In December 2019, as required by the Thai law, our subsidiary paid the fine. This payment is included in other assets on the consolidated balance sheets and negatively impacted net cash provided by operating activities in the consolidated statements of cash flows in the period of payment. Both our subsidiary and the Public Prosecutor filed an appeal of the trial court's decision. The appellate court issued its decision on the appeals on June 1, 2022. The appellate court affirmed the findings of under-declaration of import prices of cigarettes but reduced the fine to approximately THB 122 million (approximately $3.4 million) finding the trial court erred in its calculation of the under-declaration and fine. The appellate court affirmed the acquittals of the individual defendants. Our subsidiary has appealed the decision to the Supreme Court of Thailand. The Public Prosecutor has also filed an appeal challenging the dismissal of charges against the individual defendants and the amount of the fine imposed. Thailand is required to refund any payment made by our subsidiary in excess of any fine asserted by the courts.

The DSI also conducted an investigation into alleged underpayment by PM Thailand of customs duties and excise taxes relating to imports from Indonesia covering the period 2000-2003. On January 26, 2017, the Public Prosecutor filed charges against PM Thailand and its former Thai employee in the Bangkok Criminal Court alleging that PM Thailand and its former employee jointly and with the intention to defraud the Thai government under-declared import prices of cigarettes to avoid full payment of taxes and duties in connection with import entries during the period from January 2002 to July 2003. The government is seeking a fine of approximately THB 19.8 billion (approximately $553 million). In May 2017, Thailand enacted a new customs act. The new act, which took effect in November 2017, substantially limits the amount of fines that Thailand could seek in these proceedings. PM Thailand believes that its declared import prices are in compliance with the Customs Valuation Agreement of the World Trade Organization and Thai law, and that the allegations of the Public Prosecutor are inconsistent with several decisions already taken by Thai Customs and a Thai court. Trial in the case began in November 2018 and concluded in December 2019. In March 2020, the trial court found our subsidiary guilty of under-declaration of the prices and imposed a fine of approximately THB 130 million (approximately $3.6 million). The trial court dismissed all charges against the individual defendant. In April 2020, as required by Thai law, our subsidiary paid the fine. This payment is included in other assets on the consolidated balance sheets and negatively impacted net cash provided by operating activities in the consolidated statements of cash flows in the period of payment. Our subsidiary filed an appeal of the trial court's decision. In addition, the Public Prosecutor filed an appeal of the trial court's decision challenging the dismissal of charges against the individual defendant and the amount of the fine imposed. The appellate court issued its decision on the appeals on January 31, 2023. The appellate court affirmed the findings of under-declaration of import prices of cigarettes but reduced the fine imposed by the trial court. The appellate court directed the Public Prosecutor to coordinate with customs officials to calculate such reduced fine in accordance with the appellate court’s decision. The appellate court affirmed the acquittal of the individual defendant. Our subsidiary has appealed the decision to the Supreme Court of Thailand. The Public Prosecutor has filed an appeal to the Supreme Court of

The South Korean Board of Audit and Inspection (“BAI”) conducted an audit of certain Korean government agencies and the tobacco industry into whether inventory movements ahead of the January 1, 2015 increase of cigarette-related taxes and funds by tobacco companies, including Philip Morris Korea Inc. ("PM Korea"), our South Korean subsidiary, were in compliance with South Korean laws. In November 2016, the tax authorities completed their audit and assessed allegedly underpaid taxes and penalties. In order to avoid nonpayment financial costs, PM Korea paid approximately KRW 272 billion (approximately $204 million), of which KRW 100 billion (approximately $75 million) was paid in 2016 and KRW 172 billion (approximately $129 million) was paid in the first quarter of 2017. These paid amounts negatively impacted net cash provided by operating activities in the consolidated statements of cash flows in the period of payment. PM Korea appealed the assessments. In January 2020, a trial court ruled that PM Korea did not underpay taxes in the amount of approximately KRW 218 billion (approximately $164 million). The tax authorities appealed this decision to the appellate court. In September 2020, the appellate court upheld the trial court's decision. The tax authorities appealed to the Supreme Court of South Korea. On July 13, 2023, the Supreme Court reversed the appellate court's decision and remanded the tax cases to the appellate court. Two separate panels at the appellate court were assigned to implement the Supreme Court decision, one related to the local level tobacco consumption tax (“TCT”) and the other related to the national level individual consumption tax (“ICT”). The first two hearings for the TCT case took place on October 18, 2023, and December 6, 2023, and the next hearing is scheduled on March 20, 2024. The first hearing for the ICT case took place on November 17, 2023, and the next hearing is put on hold until all issues are cleared in the TCT case hearings. PM Korea made factual and legal arguments which were not previously reviewed and factored in the Supreme Court decision. Based on the decision issued by the Supreme Court of South Korea on July 13, 2023, management has concluded that an adverse outcome is probable. In June 2020, another trial court ruled that PM Korea did not underpay approximately KRW 54 billion (approximately $40 million) of alleged funds underpayments. The government agencies appealed this decision. In January 2021, the appellate court upheld the trial court's decision. The government agencies appealed to the Supreme Court of South Korea. This funds case is still pending review at the Supreme Court without a specific decision date. Based on the decision issued by the Supreme Court of South Korea on July 13, 2023, management has concluded that an adverse outcome is probable. Consequently, in the second quarter of 2023, PMI recorded a non-cash pre-tax charge of $204 million in marketing, administration and research costs, reflecting the full amount previously paid by PM Korea.

A putative shareholder class action lawsuit, In re Philip Morris International Inc. Securities Litigation, is pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, purportedly on behalf of purchasers of Philip Morris International Inc. stock between July 26, 2016 and April 18, 2018. The lawsuit names Philip Morris International Inc. and certain officers and employees as defendants and includes allegations that the defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose information about PMI’s business, operations, financial condition, and prospects, related to product sales of, and alleged irregularities in clinical studies of, PMI’s Platform 1 product. The lawsuit seeks various forms of relief, including damages. In November 2018, the court consolidated three putative shareholder class action lawsuits with similar allegations previously filed in the Southern District of New York (namely, City of Westland Police and Fire Retirement System v. Philip Morris International Inc., et al., Greater Pennsylvania Carpenters’ Pension Fund v. Philip Morris International Inc., et al., and Gilchrist v. Philip Morris International Inc., et al.) into these proceedings. A putative shareholder class action lawsuit, Rubenstahl v. Philip Morris International Inc., et al., that had been previously filed in December 2017 in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, was voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiff due to similar allegations in these proceedings. On February 4, 2020, the court granted defendants’ motion in its entirety, dismissing all but one of the plaintiffs’ claims with prejudice. The court noted that one of plaintiffs’ claims (allegations relating to four non-clinical studies of PMI’s Platform 1 product) did not state a viable claim but allowed plaintiffs to replead that claim by March 3, 2020. On February 18, 2020, the plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration of the court's February 4th decision; this motion was denied on September 21, 2020. On September 28, 2020, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint seeking to replead allegations relating to four non-clinical studies of PMI's Platform 1 product. On September 10, 2021, the court granted defendant's motion to dismiss plaintiffs' amended complaint in its entirety. On December 26, 2023, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit upheld the dismissal of plaintiffs' claims.

On February 1, 2024, Philip Morris Products S.A. ("PMPSA") entered into a settlement agreement (the “Settlement Agreement”) with Nicoventures Trading Limited (“NTV”), an affiliate of British American Tobacco p.l.c. (“BAT”). Under the Settlement Agreement, PMPSA, NTV and their respective affiliates (the “Parties”) have agreed, among other things, to: (i) dismiss with prejudice, subject to certain limited exceptions, and without admission of liability certain pending legal proceedings (the “Proceedings”) between them and concerning certain of their respective products; (ii) request rescission of the limited exclusion order and the cease-and-desist order issued by the International Trade Commission (“ITC”) on September 29, 2021, and (iii) fully and finally discharge without admission of liability any injunctions granted to the Parties in the Proceedings.

subsidiaries before the ITC. Plaintiffs sought an order to prevent the importation of Platform 1 products into the United States. The ITC evidentiary hearing closed on February 1, 2021. On May 14, 2021, the administrative law judge issued an Initial and Recommended Determination ("ID/RD") finding that the Platform 1 blade products infringe two of the three patents asserted by Plaintiffs, recommending that the ITC issue a Limited Exclusion order against infringing products, and recommending against a cease-and-desist, as well as recommending against a bond pending Presidential review of the ITC's Final Determination ("FD"). Defendants and Plaintiffs filed separate Petitions for Review with the ITC of the ID/RD on May 28, 2021; on July 27, 2021, the ITC granted each of the petitions in part, deciding to review certain issues in the ID/RD. Plaintiffs and Defendants also submitted brief statements of the public interest factors in issue to the ITC on June 15, 2021. On September 29, 2021, the ITC issued its FD finding a violation of section 337 of the U.S. Tariff Act and issued (a) a limited exclusion order against PMPSA, prohibiting, inter alia, the importation of Platform 1 product and infringing components; and (b) a cease-and-desist order against Altria Client Services, LLC and its affiliate prohibiting, inter alia, sales of imported Platform 1 products. The ITC predicated the orders on its finding that Platform 1 blade products infringe two patents owned by a BAT affiliate. The ITC also found that Platform 1 blade products do not infringe a third patent owned by a BAT affiliate. The ITC further held that there were insufficient concerns over public interest to prevent the issuance of remedial orders. Following the Presidential Review period, the orders became effective and Defendants filed a petition for review of the FD with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Defendants also filed motions in the ITC and Federal Circuit for a stay of the orders pending disposition of the appeal; the ITC denied the motion on January 20, 2022 and the Federal Circuit denied the motion on January 25, 2022. The Federal Circuit heard oral argument on defendants' appeal of the FD on October 3, 2022 and, on March 31, 2023, the Federal Circuit affirmed the FD. The Eastern District of Virginia and ITC cases filed by BAT are among the Proceedings to be dismissed pursuant to the Settlement Agreement including through the Parties’ request for rescission of the limited exclusion order and the cease-and-desist order issued by the ITC on September 29, 2021.

In the Eastern District of Virginia case, the defendants also counterclaimed that BAT infringed their patents relating to certain e-vapor products, seeking damages for, and injunctive relief against, the commercialization of these products by BAT. The trial of Defendant PMPSA’s counterclaims took place from June 8-14, 2022 and, on June 15, 2022, the jury returned a verdict for PMPSA awarding approximately $10.8 million in damages for infringement up to December 31, 2021 of two PMPSA patents by BAT’s affiliate and two of BAT’s e-vapor products; the jury also found BAT’s affiliate did not infringe one of the two PMPSA patents and that the BAT affiliates had failed to prove one of the two PMPSA patents was invalid. PMPSA filed a motion for an injunction or, in the alternative, an ongoing royalty on August 12, 2022. On March 30, 2023, the court denied PMPSA's motion for an injunction and granted PMPSA an ongoing royalty against two of BAT's U.S. e-vapor products. On May 1, 2023, the court entered partial final judgment under Rule 54(b) on PMPSA's claim against BAT's affiliate. That same day, BAT's affiliate filed a notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. On May 10, 2023, PMPSA filed a notice of cross-appeal. This case is among the Proceedings to be dismissed pursuant to the Settlement Agreement. Upon petition of PMPSA, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board ("PTAB") of the United States Patent and Trademark Office has instituted review of certain claims pertaining to four of the six patents asserted by BAT affiliates in both proceedings. On January 11, 2022, PTAB issued its final decision on one of the two patents underlying the ITC's FD, invalidating all challenged claims of BAT's patent. On March 30, 2022, PTAB issued its final decision on the second of the two patents underlying the ITC's FD, finding the challenged claims patentable. The parties have filed appeals of these PTAB results to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Oral argument was held on July 13, 2023. On July 17, 2023, the Federal Circuit issued a decision summarily affirming PTAB’s decision to invalidate all challenged claims in one of the two patents underlying the ITC’s FD. The Federal Circuit issued the mandate notifying the USPTO to record the invalidity of the challenged claims on August 23, 2023. On September 14, 2023, the Federal Circuit issued a decision affirming the PTAB's decision finding certain claims in the second of the two patents underlying the ITC’s FD patentable.  PMPSA’s counterclaim in the Eastern District of Virginia challenging the validity of the remaining claims in the second of the two patents underlying the ITC’s FD is currently stayed. On July 21, 2022, PMPSA filed a Request for Rehearing of PTAB's November 2020 decision not to institute review of certain claims in the second of the two patents underlying the ITC's FD; PTAB denied the Request on October 13, 2022.

In April 2020, BAT’s affiliate commenced patent infringement proceedings, Nicoventures Trading Limited v. PM GmbH, et al., against PMI’s German subsidiary, Philip Morris GmbH, and PMPSA, in the Regional Court in Munich, Germany. Plaintiffs seek damages and injunctive relief against the commercialization of the Platform 1 blade products in Germany. In June 2021, the court stayed the proceeding in respect of one of the two patents asserted by BAT’s Affiliate. Following the December 2022 confirmation of the revocation of the other BAT patent by the European Patent Office Board of Appeal, BAT withdrew its initial claim based on that patent; the stayed action based on the second patent remains pending and is stayed pending final resolution of the revocation action. This case is among the Proceedings to be dismissed pursuant to the Settlement Agreement.

In September 2020, BAT’s affiliates commenced patent infringement and unfair competition proceedings, RAI Strategic Holdings, Inc., et al. v. Philip Morris Products S.A., et al., against PMPSA and PMI’s Italian subsidiaries, Philip Morris Manufacturing & Technology Bologna S.p.A. and Philip Morris Italia S.r.l., in the Court of Milan, Italy. Plaintiffs seek damages, as well as injunctive relief against the manufacture in Italy of the Platform 1 blade heated tobacco units allegedly infringing the asserted patents and the commercialization of the Platform 1 blade products in Italy. As part of this proceeding, in October 2020, BAT’s affiliates filed a request based on one of the two asserted patents seeking preliminary injunctive relief against the manufacture and commercialization of the Platform 1 blade products in Italy. In July 2022, the court dismissed plaintiffs’ request for preliminary injunction in its entirety

In October 2020, BAT’s affiliates commenced patent infringement proceedings, RAI Strategic Holdings, Inc., et al. v. Philip Morris Japan, Limited, et al., against PMI’s Japanese subsidiary, Philip Morris Japan Limited, and a third-party distributor in the Tokyo District Court. Plaintiffs seek damages and injunctive relief against the commercialization of the Platform 1 blade products in Japan. On December 23, 2022, the Court dismissed BAT’s claims with respect to one of the two patents that it asserted, finding no infringement; BAT filed an appeal of this dismissal. On September 21, 2023, the IP High Court issued its judgment dismissing BAT's appeal regarding the first patent. BAT appealed this decision to the Supreme Court on November 2, 2023. On November 29, 2023, the Tokyo District Court issued a first instance decision favorable to PMI, finding no infringement of the second patent BAT asserted and dismissing BAT's claim. BAT appealed this decision to the IP High Court on January 12, 2024. These cases are among the Proceedings to be dismissed pursuant to the Settlement Agreement.

In November 2020, BAT’s affiliates commenced patent infringement proceedings, RAI Strategic Holdings, Inc., et al. v. Philip Morris Romania SRL, et al., against PMI’s Romanian subsidiaries, Philip Morris Romania S.R.L. and Philip Morris Trading S.R.L., and a third-party distributor in the Court of Law of Bucharest, Civil Registry. Plaintiffs seek damages and preliminary and permanent injunctive relief against the manufacture and commercialization of the Platform 1 blade products in Romania. In February 2021, the court dismissed plaintiffs’ request for a preliminary injunction. In April 2021, the appellate court denied plaintiffs' appeal, confirming the dismissal of plaintiffs' request for preliminary injunction. Plaintiffs' proceeding requesting damages and a permanent injunction remains pending before the Court of Law of Bucharest, Civil Registry. In an October 14, 2021 hearing, the court stayed the proceeding. This case is among the Proceedings to be dismissed pursuant to the Settlement Agreement.

In March 2021, BAT’s affiliates commenced patent infringement proceedings, RAI Strategic Holdings, Inc., et al. v. Philip Morris Korea, Co., Ltd., against PM Korea in the Seoul Central District Court. Plaintiffs seek damages and injunctive relief against the commercialization of the Platform 1 blade heated tobacco units in South Korea. This case is among the Proceedings to be dismissed pursuant to the Settlement Agreement. On May 30, 2022, the Korean Patent Office issued a decision that all of the challenged claims in the patent asserted by Plaintiffs are invalid; Plaintiffs filed an appeal of this decision. Following BAT’s unsuccessful correction action at the Korean Patent Office, the court held the first hearing in the appeal of the infringement proceeding on September 12, 2023. An additional hearing in the appeal is currently scheduled to occur in the fourth quarter of 2024.

In July, 2021, PMPSA filed a claim at the High Court of Justice of England and Wales against BAT affiliates Nicoventures Trading Limited and British American Tobacco (Investments) Limited seeking revocation of the UK parts of two BAT European patents. In March, the BAT affiliates stated that they would consent to revocation of one of the patents and filed a counterclaim against PMPSA and Philip Morris Limited seeking from the court a declaration that the remaining BAT affiliate patent is infringed by Platform 1 induction products, as well as damages and injunctive relief against the commercialization of the Platform 1 induction products in the U.K. The trial took place from September 21-28, 2022. On October 25, 2023, the Court issued its decision finding that the remaining BAT patent was invalid and not infringed. BAT has elected not to appeal this decision.

On December 21, 2023, we were informed that Future Technology K.K. (“FTKK”) filed an application with Tokyo Customs against Sojitz Corporation (“Sojitz”), Philip Morris Japan Limited’s (“PMJL”) importer and distributor, due to alleged infringement of JP7299432. FTKK is seeking an order stopping the importation of TEREA consumables. At this time, FTKK is not seeking any monetary damages or costs. PMJL has entered an appearance in the proceeding as an interested party and filed its response to FTKK's application on January 31, 2024. We believe that this lawsuit is without merit and will defend it vigorously. On January 26, 2024, PMJL filed a declaratory judgment action in Tokyo District Court seeking a declaration that JP7299432 is invalid and/or infringed.

Until November 1, 2022, Medicago Inc. ("Medicago") was an equity method investee of Philip Morris Investments B.V. (“PMIBV”), a PMI subsidiary. On October 17, 2020, Medicago had entered into a contribution agreement with the Canadian government (the “Contribution Agreement”) whereby the Canadian government agreed to contribute up to CAD 173 million (approximately $131 million on the date of signing) to Medicago, to support its on-going COVID-19 vaccine development and clinical trials ("First Stage"), and for the construction of its Quebec City manufacturing facility ("Second Stage", and together with the First Stage, the “Project”). On March 31, 2022, the Contribution Agreement was amended (the “Contribution Agreement Amendment”) to reflect an additional

PMIBV and Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma Corporation (“MTPC”) are also parties to the Contribution Agreement and the Contribution Agreement Amendment as guarantors of Medicago’s obligations thereunder on a joint and several basis (“Co-Guarantors”). The Co-Guarantors agreed to repay amounts contributed by the Canadian government plus interest, if Medicago fails to do so (the "Repayment Obligations"), and could be responsible for the costs of Medicago’s other obligations (such as the achievement of specific milestones of the Project). The guarantees are in effect through March 31, 2026. Prior to the release of PMIBV from its obligations as guarantor described below, it was reasonably possible that PMI could have been responsible for a portion of those costs and obligations.