Table of Contents

 

UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

 

FORM 10-K

 

x ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

 

For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2005

 

OR

 

¨ TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

 

For the transition period from                      to                     

 

Commission File Number 1-8940

 

ALTRIA GROUP, INC.

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

 

Virginia   13-3260245
(State or other jurisdiction of
incorporation or organization)
  (I.R.S. Employer
Identification No.)

 

120 Park Avenue, New York, N.Y.   10017
(Address of principal executive offices)   (Zip Code)

 

917-663-4000

(Registrant’s telephone number, including area code)

 

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act:

 

               Title of each class               


 

Name of each exchange on which registered


Common Stock, $0.33  1 / 3 par value

  New York Stock Exchange

 

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act: None

 

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act.  Yes   þ     No   ¨

 

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or Section 15(d) of the Exchange Act.  Yes   ¨     No   þ

 

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days. Yes   þ     No   ¨

 

Indicate by check mark if disclosure of delinquent filers pursuant to Item 405 of Regulation S-K is not contained herein, and will not be contained, to the best of registrant’s knowledge, in definitive proxy or information statements incorporated by reference in Part III of this Form 10-K or any amendment to this Form 10-K. ¨

 

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, or a non-accelerated filer. See definition of “accelerated filer and large accelerated filer” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act.

 

Large accelerated filer þ

  Accelerated filer ¨   Non-accelerated filer ¨

 

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act).  Yes   ¨     No   þ

 

As of June 30, 2005 the aggregate market value of the registrant’s common stock held by non-affiliates of the registrant was approximately $134 billion based on the closing sale price of the common stock as reported on the New York Stock Exchange.

 

                          Class                           


 

Outstanding at February 28, 2006


Common Stock, $0.33  1 / 3 par value

  2,086,951,179 shares

 

DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

 

Document


  

Parts Into Which Incorporated


Portions of the registrant’s annual report to shareholders for the year ended December 31, 2005 (the “2005 Annual Report”)    Parts I, II, and IV
Portions of the registrant’s definitive proxy statement for use in connection with its annual meeting of stockholders to be held on April 27, 2006, to be filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) on or about March 13, 2006    Part III

 



Table of Contents

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

          Page

PART I

         

Item 1.

  

Business

   1

Item 1A.

  

Risk Factors

   14

Item 1B.

  

Unresolved Staff Comments

   18

Item 2.

  

Properties

   18

Item 3.

  

Legal Proceedings

   18

Item 4.

  

Submission of Matters to a Vote of Security Holders

   36

PART II

         

Item 5.

  

Market for Registrant’s Common Equity, Related Stockholder Matters and Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities

   37

Item 6.

  

Selected Financial Data

   37

Item 7.

  

Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operation

   37

Item 7A.

  

Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk

   37

Item 8.

  

Financial Statements and Supplementary Data

   38

Item 9.

  

Changes in and Disagreements with Accountants on Accounting and Financial Disclosure

   38

Item 9A.

  

Controls and Procedures

   38

Item 9B.

  

Other Information

   38

PART III

         

Item 10.

  

Directors and Executive Officers of the Registrant

   38

Item 11.

  

Executive Compensation

   39

Item 12.

  

Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and Management and Related Stockholder Matters

   40

Item 13.

  

Certain Relationships and Related Transactions

   40

Item 14.

  

Principal Accounting Fees and Services

   40

PART IV

         

Item 15.

  

Exhibits and Financial Statement Schedules

   40

Signatures

        45

Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm on Financial Statement Schedule

   S-1

Valuation and Qualifying Accounts

   S-2


Table of Contents

PART I

 

Item 1. Business.

 

(a)  General Development of Business

 

General

 

As used herein, unless the context indicates otherwise, “Altria Group, Inc.” refers to the consolidated financial position, results of operations and cash flows of the Altria family of companies and the term “ALG” refers solely to the parent company. ALG’s wholly-owned subsidiaries, Philip Morris USA Inc. (“PM USA”) and Philip Morris International Inc. (“PMI”) are engaged in the manufacture and sale of cigarettes and other tobacco products. ALG’s majority owned (87.2% as of December 31, 2005) subsidiary Kraft Foods Inc. (“Kraft”) is engaged in the manufacture and sale of packaged foods and beverages. Philip Morris Capital Corporation (“PMCC”), another wholly-owned subsidiary, maintains a portfolio of leveraged and direct finance leases. During 2003, PMCC shifted its strategic focus from an emphasis on the growth of its portfolio of finance leases through new investments to one of maximizing investment gains and generating cash flows from its existing portfolio of finance assets. In addition, at December 31, 2005, ALG had a 28.7% economic interest and voting interest in SABMiller plc (“SABMiller”), which is engaged in the manufacture and sale of various beer products.

 

As previously communicated, for significant business reasons, the Board of Directors is looking at a number of restructuring alternatives, including the possibility of separating Altria Group, Inc. into two, or potentially three, independent entities. Continuing improvements in the entire litigation environment are a prerequisite to such action by the Board of Directors. The timing and chronology of events are uncertain.

 

PM USA is the largest cigarette company in the United States. PMI is a holding company whose subsidiaries and affiliates and their licensees are engaged primarily in the manufacture and sale of tobacco products (mainly cigarettes) internationally. Marlboro , the principal cigarette brand of these companies, has been the world’s largest-selling cigarette brand since 1972.

 

In March 2005, a subsidiary of PMI acquired 40% of the outstanding shares of PT HM Sampoerna Tbk (“Sampoerna”), an Indonesian tobacco company. In May 2005, PMI purchased an additional 58% of the outstanding shares, for a total of 98%. The total cost of the transaction was $4.8 billion, including Sampoerna’s cash of $0.3 billion and debt of the U.S. dollar equivalent of $0.2 billion. The purchase price was primarily financed through a euro 4.5 billion bank credit facility arranged for PMI and its subsidiaries in May 2005, consisting of a euro 2.5 billion three-year term loan facility and a euro 2.0 billion five-year revolving credit facility. These facilities are not guaranteed by ALG.

 

Sampoerna’s financial position and results of operations have been fully consolidated with PMI as of June 1, 2005. From March 2005 to May 2005, PMI recorded equity earnings in Sampoerna. Sampoerna contributed $315 million of operating income and $128 million of net earnings since March 2005.

 

Kraft is engaged in the manufacture and sale of packaged foods and beverages in the United States, Canada, Europe, Latin America, Asia Pacific, the Middle East and Africa. Kraft manages and reports operating results through two units, Kraft North America Commercial (“KNAC”) and Kraft International Commercial (“KIC”). Kraft has operations in 71 countries and sells its products in more than 150 countries.

 

-1-


Table of Contents

In June 2005, Kraft sold substantially all of its sugar confectionery business for pre-tax proceeds of approximately $1.4 billion. The sale included the Life Savers , Creme Savers , Altoids , Trolli and Sugus brands. Altria Group, Inc. has reflected the results of Kraft’s sugar confectionery business prior to the closing date as discontinued operations on the consolidated statements of earnings for all years presented. The assets related to the sugar confectionery business were reflected as assets of discontinued operations held for sale on the consolidated balance sheet at December 31, 2004.

 

In January 2004, Kraft announced a three-year restructuring program with the objectives of leveraging Kraft’s global scale, realigning and lowering its cost structure, and optimizing capacity utilization. As part of this program, Kraft anticipates the closure or sale of up to 20 plants and the elimination of approximately 6,000 positions. From 2004 through 2006, Kraft expects to incur approximately $1.2 billion in pre-tax charges for the program, reflecting asset disposals, severance and other implementation costs, including $297 million and $641 million incurred in 2005 and 2004, respectively. Approximately 60% of the pre-tax charges are expected to require cash payments. In addition, in January 2006, Kraft announced plans to expand its restructuring efforts beyond those originally contemplated. Additional pre-tax charges are anticipated to be $2.5 billion from 2006 to 2009, of which approximately $1.6 billion are expected to require cash payments. These charges will result in the anticipated closure of up to 20 additional facilities and the elimination of approximately 8,000 additional positions. The entire restructuring program is expected to ultimately result in $3.7 billion in pre-tax charges, the closure of up to 40 facilities and the elimination of approximately 14,000 positions. Approximately $2.3 billion of the $3.7 billion in pre-tax charges are expected to require cash payments.

 

Source of Funds – Dividends

 

Because ALG is a holding company, its principal sources of funds are from the payment of dividends and repayment of debt from its subsidiaries. Kraft and PMI each maintain separate revolving credit facilities to finance normal working capital and other needs. The Kraft facility has a minimum net worth covenant and the PMI facility has an earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization (“EBITDA”) to interest ratio covenant. Kraft and PMI have met, and expect to continue to meet, their respective covenants. Except for the previously discussed covenants and a minimum net worth requirement at PM USA as part of a court-approved stipulation regarding the Engle judgment, ALG’s principal wholly-owned and majority-owned subsidiaries currently are not limited by long-term debt or other agreements in their ability to pay cash dividends or make other distributions with respect to their common stock.

 

(b)  Financial Information About Segments

 

Altria Group, Inc.’s reportable segments are domestic tobacco, international tobacco, North American food, international food and financial services. Net revenues and operating companies income* (together with a reconciliation to operating income) attributable to each such segment for each of the last three years (along with total assets for each of tobacco, food and financial services at December 31, 2005, 2004 and 2003) are set forth in Note 15 to Altria Group, Inc.’s consolidated financial statements (“Note 15”), which is incorporated herein by reference to the 2005 Annual Report.

 


* Altria Group, Inc.’s management reviews operating companies income to evaluate segment performance and allocate resources. Operating companies income for the segments excludes general corporate expenses and amortization of intangibles. The accounting policies of the segments are the same as those described in Note 2 to Altria Group, Inc.’s consolidated financial statements and are incorporated herein by reference to the 2005 Annual Report.

 

-2-


Table of Contents

The relative percentages of operating companies income attributable to each reportable segment were as follows:

 

     2005

    2004

    2003

 

Domestic tobacco

   26.3 %   27.7 %   23.5 %

International tobacco

   45.0     41.2     38.0  

North American food

   22.0     24.3     28.2  

International food

   6.5     5.9     8.4  

Financial services

   0.2     0.9     1.9  
    

 

 

     100.0 %   100.0 %   100.0 %
    

 

 

 

Changes in the relative percentages above reflect the following:

 

    In 2003, PM USA took steps to narrow price gaps in the intensely competitive United States cigarette industry. In 2004, domestic tobacco results reflect savings from changes that PM USA made to its trade programs. In 2005, domestic tobacco results reflect lower wholesale promotional allowance rates.

 

    In 2005, international tobacco results primarily reflect higher pricing, the impact of acquisitions in Indonesia and Colombia, favorable currency and higher income from the return of the Marlboro license in Japan.

 

    In 2004, North American and international food results reflect charges incurred as part of Kraft’s three-year restructuring program, increased promotional spending and higher commodity and benefit costs. In 2005, North American and international food results primarily reflect higher commodity and benefit costs, partially offset by lower asset impairment and exit costs, gains on sales of international food businesses in 2005, and the impact of the extra week of shipments in 2005.

 

    In 2005 and 2004, financial services results include charges taken for finance lease exposure to the United States airline industry of $200 million and $140 million, respectively.

 

 

(c)  Narrative Description of Business

 

Tobacco Products

 

PM USA manufactures, markets and sells cigarettes in the United States and its territories, and contract manufactures cigarettes for PMI. Subsidiaries and affiliates of PMI and their licensees manufacture, market and sell tobacco products outside the United States.

 

Acquisitions

 

Sampoerna:

 

In March 2005, a subsidiary of PMI acquired 40% of the outstanding shares of Sampoerna, an Indonesian tobacco company. In May 2005, PMI purchased an additional 58%, for a total of 98%. The total cost of the transaction was $4.8 billion, including Sampoerna’s cash of $0.3 billion and debt of the U.S. dollar equivalent of $0.2 billion. The purchase price was primarily financed through a euro 4.5 billion bank credit facility arranged for PMI and its subsidiaries in May 2005, consisting of a euro 2.5 billion three-year term loan facility and a euro 2.0 billion five-year revolving credit facility. These facilities are not guaranteed by ALG.

 

-3-


Table of Contents

The acquisition of Sampoerna allowed PMI to enter the profitable kretek cigarette segment in Indonesia. Sampoerna’s financial position and results of operations have been fully consolidated with PMI as of June 1, 2005. From March 2005 to May 2005, PMI recorded equity earnings in Sampoerna. Sampoerna contributed $315 million of operating income and $128 million of net earnings since March 2005.

 

Assets purchased consist primarily of goodwill of $3.5 billion, other intangible assets of $1.3 billion, inventories of $0.5 billion and property, plant and equipment of $0.4 billion. Liabilities assumed in the acquisition consist principally of long-term debt of $0.2 billion and accrued liabilities. These amounts represent the preliminary allocation of purchase price and are subject to revision when appraisals are finalized, which will be in the first half of 2006.

 

Other:

 

During 2005, PMI acquired a 98.2% stake in Coltabaco, the largest tobacco company in Colombia, with a 48% market share, for approximately $300 million. During 2004, PMI purchased a tobacco business in Finland for a cost of approximately $42 million. In October 2004, a subsidiary of PMI purchased a 20% stake in a tobacco company in Pakistan for $60 million, bringing the subsidiary’s aggregate share ownership of the company to 40%. During 2003, PMI purchased approximately 74.2% of a tobacco business in Serbia for a cost of approximately $486 million, and in 2004, increased its ownership interest to 85.2%. During 2003, PMI also purchased 99% of a tobacco business in Greece for approximately $387 million and increased its ownership interest in its affiliate in Ecuador from less than 50% to approximately 98% for a cost of $70 million.

 

Domestic Tobacco Products

 

PM USA is the largest tobacco company in the United States, with total cigarette shipments in the United States of 185.5 billion units in 2005, a decrease of 0.8% from 2004.

 

PM USA’s major premium brands are Marlboro , Virginia Slims and Parliament . Its principal discount brand is Basic . All of its brands are marketed to take into account differing preferences of adult smokers. Marlboro is the largest-selling cigarette brand in the United States, with shipments of 150.5 billion units in 2005 (up 0.1% over 2004).

 

In the premium segment, PM USA’s 2005 shipment volume decreased 0.6% from 2004, and its shipment volume in the discount segment decreased 3.2%. Shipments of premium cigarettes accounted for 91.6% of PM USA’s total 2005 volume, up from 91.4% in 2004.

 

The following table summarizes PM USA’s retail share performance, based on data from the IRI/Capstone Total Retail Panel, which was developed to measure market share in retail stores selling cigarettes, but was not designed to capture Internet or direct mail sales:

 

    

For Years Ended

December 31,


 
     2005

    2004

    2003

 

Marlboro

   40.0 %   39.5 %   38.0 %

Parliament

   1.7     1.7     1.7  

Virginia Slims

   2.3     2.4     2.4  

Basic

   4.3     4.2     4.2  
    

 

 

Focus on Four Brands

   48.3     47.8     46.3  

Other

   1.7     2.0     2.4  
    

 

 

Total PM USA

   50.0 %   49.8 %   48.7 %
    

 

 

 

-4-


Table of Contents

During 2003 and 2002, weak economic conditions with resultant consumer frugality and higher state excise taxes resulted in intense price competition in the United States cigarette industry. These factors significantly affected shipments of PM USA’s products, which compete predominantly in the premium category. To address these issues, in 2003, PM USA took actions to significantly lower the price gap between its products and its competitors’ products. PM USA believes that its enhanced sales and promotion programs are having their intended effect, as measured by the improvement in its retail share.

 

PM USA cannot predict future changes or rates of change in domestic tobacco industry volume, the relative sizes of the premium and discount segments or its shipment or retail market share; however, it believes that its results may be materially adversely affected by price increases related to increased excise taxes and tobacco litigation settlements, as well as by the other items discussed below and in Item 1A. Risk Factors .

 

As discussed in Note 19 to Altria Group, Inc.’s consolidated financial statements (“Note 19”), which is incorporated herein by reference to the 2005 Annual Report, in connection with obtaining a stay of execution in the Price case, PM USA placed a pre-existing 7.0%, $6 billion long-term note from ALG to PM USA in an escrow account with an Illinois financial institution. Since this note is the result of an intercompany financing arrangement, it does not appear on the consolidated balance sheets of Altria Group, Inc. In addition, PM USA agreed to make cash deposits with the clerk of the Madison County Circuit Court in the following amounts: beginning October 1, 2003, an amount equal to the interest earned by PM USA on the ALG note ($210 million every six months), an additional $800 million in four equal quarterly installments between September 2003 and June 2004 and the payments of the principal of the note, which are due in April 2008, 2009 and 2010. Through December 31, 2005, PM USA made $1.85 billion of the cash payments due under the judge’s order. Cash payments into the account are included in other assets on Altria Group, Inc.’s consolidated balance sheets at December 31, 2005 and 2004. If PM USA prevails on appeal, the escrowed note and all cash deposited with the court will be returned to PM USA, with accrued interest less administrative fees payable to the court.

 

International Tobacco Products

 

PMI’s total cigarette shipments increased 5.7% in 2005 to 804.5 billion units. PMI estimates that its share of the international cigarette market (which is defined as worldwide cigarette volume excluding the United States and duty-free shipments) was approximately 15.0%, 14.5% and 14.5% in 2005, 2004 and 2003, respectively. PMI estimates that international cigarette market shipments were approximately 5.1 trillion units in 2005, which was in line with 2004. PMI’s leading brands — Marlboro , L&M , Philip Morris , Bond Street , Chesterfield , Parliament , Lark , Merit and Virginia Slims  — collectively accounted for approximately 11.1%, 11.0% and 11.0% of the international cigarette market in 2005, 2004 and 2003, respectively. Shipments of PMI’s principal brand, Marlboro , increased 2.0% in 2005, and represented approximately 6.0%, 5.8%, and 6.0% of the international cigarette market in 2005, 2004 and 2003, respectively.

 

PMI has a cigarette market share of at least 15%, and in a number of instances substantially more than 15%, in more than 80 markets, including Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Colombia, the Czech Republic, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Kazakhstan, Mexico, the Netherlands, the Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Serbia, Singapore, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey and Ukraine.

 

 

Distribution, Competition and Raw Materials

 

PM USA sells its tobacco products principally to wholesalers (including distributors), large retail organizations, including chain stores, and the armed services. Subsidiaries and affiliates of PMI and their licensees sell their tobacco products worldwide to distributors, wholesalers, retailers, state-owned enterprises and other customers.

 

-5-


Table of Contents

The market for tobacco products is highly competitive, characterized by brand recognition and loyalty, with product quality, price, marketing and packaging constituting the significant methods of competition. Promotional activities include, in certain instances and where permitted by law, allowances, the distribution of incentive items, price promotions and other discounts, including coupons, product promotions and allowances for new products. The tobacco products of ALG’s subsidiaries, affiliates and their licensees are advertised and promoted through various media, although television and radio advertising of cigarettes is prohibited in the United States and is prohibited or restricted in many other countries. In addition, as discussed below in Item 3. Legal Proceedings, PM USA and other domestic tobacco manufacturers have agreed to other marketing restrictions in the United States as part of the settlements of state health care cost recovery actions.

 

In the United States, under a contract growing program known as the Tobacco Farmers Partnering Program, PM USA purchases burley and flue-cured leaf tobaccos of various grades and styles directly from tobacco growers. Under the terms of this program, PM USA agrees to purchase all of the tobacco that participating growers may sell. PM USA also purchases its United States tobacco requirements through other sources. In 2003, in connection with the settlement of a suit filed on behalf of a purported class of tobacco growers and quota-holders against certain manufacturers, including PM USA, and leaf dealers, PM USA and certain other defendants reached an agreement with plaintiffs to settle the lawsuit. The agreement includes a commitment by each settling manufacturer defendant, including PM USA, to purchase a certain percentage of its leaf requirements from U.S. tobacco growers over a period of at least ten years. These quantities are subject to adjustment in accordance with the terms of the settlement agreement.

 

Tobacco production in the United States has been subject to government controls, including the production control programs administered by the United States Department of Agriculture (the “USDA”). In October 2004, the Fair and Equitable Tobacco Reform Act of 2004 (“FETRA”) was signed into law. FETRA provides for the elimination of the federal tobacco quota and price support program through an industry funded buy-out of tobacco growers and quota-holders. The cost of the buy-out to the industry is estimated at approximately $9.6 billion and will be paid over 10 years by manufacturers and importers of all tobacco products. The cost will be allocated based on the relative market shares of manufacturers and importers of all tobacco products. The quota buy-out payments will offset already scheduled payments to the National Tobacco Grower Settlement Trust (the “NTGST”). See Item 3. Legal Proceedings, Health Care Cost Recovery Litigation – Settlements of Health Care Cost Recovery Litigation, for a discussion of the NTGST. Manufacturers and importers of tobacco products are also obligated to cover any losses (up to $500 million) that the government may incur on the disposition of tobacco pool stock accumulated under the previous tobacco price support program. In 2005, PM USA recorded a $138 million expense for its share of the loss. Altria Group, Inc. does not currently anticipate that the quota buy-out will have a material adverse impact on its consolidated results in 2006 and beyond.

 

In addition, oriental, flue-cured and burley tobaccos are purchased outside the United States. Tobacco production outside the United States is subject to a variety of controls and external factors, which may include tobacco subsidies and tobacco production control programs. All of those controls and programs may substantially affect market prices for tobacco.

 

PM USA and PMI believe there is an adequate supply of tobacco in the world markets to satisfy their current and anticipated production requirements.

 

-6-


Table of Contents

Business Environment

 

Portions of the information called for by this Item are hereby incorporated by reference to the paragraphs captioned “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations – Operating Results by Business Segment – Tobacco Business Environment” on pages 24 to 27 of the 2005 Annual Report and made a part hereof.

 

Food Products

 

Acquisitions and Divestitures

 

In June 2005, Kraft sold substantially all of its sugar confectionery business for pre-tax proceeds of approximately $1.4 billion. The sale included the Life Savers , Creme Savers , Altoids , Trolli and Sugus brands. Altria Group, Inc. has reflected the results of Kraft’s sugar confectionery business prior to the closing date as discontinued operations on the consolidated statements of earnings for all years presented. The assets related to the sugar confectionery business were reflected as assets of discontinued operations held for sale on the consolidated balance sheet at December 31, 2004. Kraft recorded a net loss on sale of discontinued operations of $297 million in 2005, related largely to taxes on the transaction. ALG’s share of the loss, net of minority interest, was $255 million. Pursuant to the sugar confectionery sale agreement, Kraft has agreed to provide certain transition and supply services to the buyer. These service arrangements are primarily for terms of one year or less, with the exception of one supply arrangement with a term of not more than three years. The expected cash flow from this supply arrangement is not significant.

 

During 2005, Kraft sold its fruit snacks assets and incurred a pre-tax asset impairment charge of $93 million in recognition of this sale. Additionally, during 2005, Kraft sold its U.K. desserts assets and its U.S. yogurt brand. The aggregate proceeds received from divestitures, excluding the sale of the sugar confectionery business, were $238 million, on which pre-tax gains of $108 million were recorded. In December 2005, Kraft announced the sales of certain Canadian assets and a small U.S. biscuit brand and incurred pre-tax asset impairment charges of $176 million in recognition of these sales. These transactions closed in the first quarter of 2006. During 2004, Kraft sold a Brazilian snack nuts business and trademarks associated with a candy business in Norway. The aggregate proceeds received from the sales of these businesses were $18 million, on which pre-tax losses of $3 million were recorded. During 2003, Kraft sold a European rice business and a branded fresh cheese business in Italy. The aggregate proceeds received from the sales of businesses in 2003 were $96 million, on which pre-tax gains of $31 million were recorded.

 

During 2004, Kraft acquired a U.S.-based beverage business for a total cost of $137 million. During 2003, Kraft acquired trademarks associated with a small U.S.-based natural foods business and also acquired a biscuits business in Egypt. The total cost of these and other smaller businesses purchased by Kraft during 2003 was $98 million.

 

The operating results of the businesses acquired and sold, excluding Kraft’s sugar confectionery business, were not material to Altria Group, Inc.’s consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows in any of the years presented.

 

North American Food

 

KNAC’s principal brands span five consumer sectors and include the following:

 

Snacks:     Oreo , Chips Ahoy! , Newtons , Peek Freans , Nilla , Nutter Butter , and SnackWell’s cookies; Ritz , Premium , Triscuit , Wheat Thins , Cheese Nips , Better Cheddars , Honey Maid Grahams and Teddy Grahams crackers; South Beach Diet (under license) crackers, cookies and

 

-7-


Table of Contents

bars ; Planters nuts and salted snacks; Terry’s and Toblerone chocolate confectionery products; Handi-Snacks two-compartment snacks; and Balance nutrition and energy snacks.

 

Beverages:     Maxwell House , General Foods International , Starbucks (under license), Yuban , Seattle’s Best (under license), Sanka , Nabob , Gevalia and Tassimo coffees; Capri Sun (under license), Tang , Kool-Aid and Crystal Light aseptic juice drinks; Kool-Aid , Tang , Crystal Light and Country Time powdered beverages; Veryfine juices; Tazo teas (under license); and Fruit 2 O water.

 

Cheese and dairy:     Kraft and Cracker Barrel natural cheeses: Philadelphia cream cheese; Kraft and Velveeta process cheeses; Kraft grated cheeses; Cheez Whiz process cheese sauce; Polly-O cheese; Deluxe process cheese slices; and Knudsen and Breakstone’s cottage cheese and sour cream.

 

Grocery:     Cool Whip frozen whipped topping; Back to Nature crackers, cookies, cereals and macaroni & cheese dinners; Post ready-to-eat cereals; Cream of Wheat and Cream of Rice hot cereals; Kraft and Miracle Whip spoonable dressings; Kraft salad dressings; A.1. steak sauce; Kraft and Bull’s-Eye barbecue sauces; Grey Poupon premium mustards; Shake ‘N Bake coatings; Jell-O dry packaged desserts and refrigerated gelatin and pudding snacks; Handi-Snacks shelf-stable pudding snacks; and Milk-Bone pet snacks.

 

Convenient Meals:     DiGiorno , Tombstone , Jack’s and California Pizza Kitchen (under license) and Delissio frozen pizzas; Kraft macaroni & cheese dinners; South Beach Diet (under license) pizzas and meals ; Taco Bell Home Originals (under license) meal kits; Lunchables lunch combinations; Oscar Mayer and Louis Rich cold cuts, hot dogs and bacon; Boca soy-based meat alternatives; Stove Top stuffing mix; and Minute rice.

 

International Food

 

KIC’s principal brands within the five consumer sectors include the following:

 

Snacks: Milka , Suchard , Côte d’Or , Marabou , Toblerone , Freia , Terry’s , Daim , Figaro , Karuna, Korona , Poiana , Prince Polo , Alpen Gold , Siesta , Pokrov , Lacta and Gallito chocolate confectionery products; Estrella , Maarud , Cipso and Lux salted snacks; Planters nuts and salted snacks; and Oreo , Chips Ahoy! , Ritz , Terrabusi , Club Social , Cerealitas , Trakinas and Lucky biscuits.

 

Beverages: Jacobs , Gevalia , Carte Noire , Jacques Vabre , Kaffee HAG , Grand’ Mère , Kenco , Saimaza , Maxim , Maxwell House , Dadak , Onko , Samar , Tassimo and Nova Brasilia coffees; Suchard Express , O’Boy , and Kaba chocolate drinks; Tang , Clight , Kool-Aid , Royal , Verao , Fresh , Frisco , Q-Refres-Ko and Ki-Suco powdered beverages; Maguary juice concentrate and ready-to-drink beverages; and Capri Sun (under license) aseptic juice drinks.

 

Cheese and dairy: Philadelphia cream cheese; Sottilette , Kraft , Dairylea , Osella and El Caserío cheeses; Kraft and Eden process cheeses; and Cheez Whiz process cheese spread.

 

Grocery: Kraft spoonable and pourable salad dressings; Miracel Whip spoonable dressings; Royal dry packaged desserts; Post ready-to-eat cereals ; Kraft and ETA peanut butters; and Vegemite yeast spread.

 

Convenient Meals: Lunchables lunch combinations; Kraft macaroni & cheese dinners; Kraft and Mirácoli pasta dinners and sauces; Oscar Mayer lunch meat, bacon and hot dogs; and Simmenthal canned meats.

 

Distribution, Competition and Raw Materials

 

KNAC’s products are generally sold to supermarket chains, wholesalers, supercenters, club stores, mass merchandisers, distributors, convenience stores, gasoline stations, drug stores, value

 

-8-


Table of Contents

stores and other retail food outlets. In general, the retail trade for food products is consolidating. Food products are distributed through distribution centers, satellite warehouses, company-operated and public cold-storage facilities, depots and other facilities. Most distribution in North America is in the form of warehouse delivery, but biscuits and frozen pizza are distributed through two direct-store delivery systems. Kraft supports its selling efforts through three principal sets of activities: consumer advertising in broadcast, print, outdoor and on-line media; consumer promotions such as coupons and contests; and trade promotions to support price features, displays and other merchandising of products by customers. Subsidiaries and affiliates of KIC sell their food products primarily in the same manner and also engage the services of independent sales offices and agents.

 

Kraft is subject to competitive conditions in all aspects of its business. Competitors include large national and international companies and numerous local and regional companies. Some competitors may have different profit objectives and some competitors may be more or less susceptible to currency exchange rates. Kraft’s food products also compete with generic products and private-label products of food retailers, wholesalers and cooperatives. Kraft competes primarily on the basis of product quality, brand recognition, brand loyalty, service, marketing, advertising and price. Substantial advertising and promotional expenditures are required to maintain or improve a brand’s market position or to introduce a new product.

 

Kraft is a major purchaser of milk, cheese, nuts, green coffee beans, cocoa, corn products, wheat, rice, pork, poultry, beef, vegetable oil, and sugar and other sweeteners. It also uses significant quantities of glass, plastic and cardboard to package its products. Kraft continuously monitors worldwide supply and cost trends of these commodities to enable it to take appropriate action to obtain ingredients and packaging needed for production.

 

Kraft purchases a substantial portion of its dairy raw material requirements, including milk and cheese, from independent third parties such as agricultural cooperatives and independent processors. The prices for milk and other dairy product purchases are substantially influenced by government programs, as well as by market supply and demand. Dairy commodity costs on average were lower in 2005 than in 2004.

 

The most significant cost item in coffee products is green coffee beans, which are purchased on world markets. Green coffee bean prices are affected by the quality and availability of supply, trade agreements among producing and consuming nations, the unilateral policies of the producing nations, changes in the value of the United States dollar in relation to certain other currencies and consumer demand for coffee products. In 2005, coffee bean costs on average were higher than in 2004.

 

A significant cost item in chocolate confectionery products is cocoa, which is purchased on world markets, and the price of which is affected by the quality and availability of supply and changes in the value of the British pound sterling and the United States dollar relative to certain other currencies. In 2005, cocoa bean and cocoa butter costs on average were higher than in 2004.

 

During 2005, aggregate commodity costs continued to rise for Kraft, with significant impacts resulting from higher coffee, nuts, energy and packaging costs, partially offset by lower year-over-year dairy costs. For 2005, pre-tax aggregate commodity costs increased by approximately $800 million versus 2004 following an increase of approximately $900 million for 2004 versus 2003. Kraft expects the higher cost environment to continue, particularly for energy and packaging.

 

The prices paid for raw materials and agricultural materials used in Kraft’s food products generally reflect external factors such as weather conditions, commodity market fluctuations, currency fluctuations and the effects of governmental agricultural programs. Although the prices of the principal raw materials can be expected to fluctuate as a result of these factors, Kraft believes such raw

 

-9-


Table of Contents

materials to be in adequate supply and generally available from numerous sources. Kraft uses hedging techniques to minimize the impact of price fluctuations in its principal raw materials. However, Kraft does not fully hedge against changes in commodity prices and these strategies may not protect Kraft from increases in specific raw material costs.

 

Regulation

 

All of KNAC’s United States food products and packaging materials are subject to regulations administered by the Food and Drug Administration (the “FDA”) or, with respect to products containing meat and poultry, the Food Safety and Inspection Service of the USDA. Among other things, these agencies enforce statutory prohibitions against misbranded and adulterated foods, establish safety standards for food processing, establish ingredients and manufacturing procedures for certain foods, establish standards of identity for certain foods, determine the safety of food additives, and establish labeling standards and nutrition labeling requirements for food products.

 

In addition, various states regulate the business of KNAC’s operating units by licensing plants, enforcing federal and state standards of identity for selected food products, grading food products, inspecting plants, regulating certain trade practices in connection with the sale of dairy products and imposing their own labeling requirements on food products.

 

Many of the food commodities on which KNAC’s United States businesses rely are subject to governmental agricultural programs. These programs have substantial effects on prices and supplies, and are subject to Congressional and administrative review.

 

Almost all of the activities of Kraft’s operations outside of the United States are subject to local and national regulations similar to those applicable to KNAC’s United States businesses and, in some cases, international regulatory provisions, such as those of the European Union (the “EU”) relating to labeling, packaging, food content, pricing, marketing and advertising, and related areas.

 

The EU and certain individual countries require that food products containing genetically modified organisms or classes of ingredients derived from them be labeled accordingly. Other countries may adopt similar regulations. The FDA has concluded that there is no basis for similar mandatory labeling under current United States law.

 

Business Environment

 

Portions of the information called for by this Item are hereby incorporated by reference to the paragraphs captioned “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations – Operating Results by Business Segment – Food Business Environment” on pages 30 to 31 of the 2005 Annual Report and made a part hereof.

 

Financial Services

 

PMCC holds investments in finance leases, principally in transportation (including aircraft), power generation and manufacturing equipment and facilities. Total assets of PMCC were $7.4 billion at December 31, 2005, down from $7.8 billion at December 31, 2004, reflecting a decrease in finance assets, net, due to asset sales. In 2003, PMCC shifted its strategic focus and is no longer making new investments but is instead focused on managing its existing portfolio of finance assets in order to maximize gains and generate cash flow from asset sales and related activities. Accordingly, PMCC’s operating companies income will fluctuate over time as investments mature or are sold. PMCC’s finance asset portfolio includes leases in the following investment categories: aircraft, electric power, surface transport, manufacturing, real estate and energy industries. Finance assets, net, are comprised

 

-10-


Table of Contents

of total lease payments receivable and the residual value of assets under lease, reduced by third-party nonrecourse debt and unearned income. The payment of the nonrecourse debt is collateralized by lease payments receivable and the leased property, and is nonrecourse to all other assets of PMCC or Altria Group, Inc. As required by accounting standards generally accepted in the United States of America (“U.S. GAAP”), the third-party nonrecourse debt has been offset against the related rentals receivable and has been presented on a net basis, within finance assets, net, in Altria Group, Inc.’s consolidated balance sheets.

 

During 2005, 2004 and 2003, PMCC received proceeds from asset sales and maturities of $476 million, $644 million and $507 million, respectively, and recorded gains of $72 million, $112 million and $45 million, respectively, in operating companies income.

 

Among its leasing activities, PMCC leases a number of aircraft, predominantly to major United States passenger carriers. At December 31, 2005, $2.1 billion of PMCC’s finance asset balance related to aircraft. Two of PMCC’s aircraft lessees, Delta Air Lines, Inc. (“Delta”) and Northwest Airlines, Inc. (“Northwest”) are currently under bankruptcy protection and a third lessee, United Air Lines, Inc. (“United”) exited bankruptcy on February 1, 2006. In addition, PMCC leases various natural gas-fired power plants to indirect subsidiaries of Calpine Corporation (“Calpine”), also currently under bankruptcy protection. PMCC is not recording income on any of these leases.

 

PMCC leases 24 Boeing 757 aircraft to United with an aggregate finance asset balance of $541 million at December 31, 2005. Eighteen of these are direct finance leases, which United has assumed. There is no third-party debt associated with these leases. United remains current on lease payments due to PMCC on these 18 amended leases. PMCC’s leveraged leases for the six remaining aircraft were rejected effective February 1, 2006, and it is expected that PMCC’s interest in these aircraft will be foreclosed upon during the first quarter of 2006 pursuant to a foreclosure agreement between PMCC and the public debt holders. The foreclosure will result in the write-off of the $92 million finance asset balance on these six aircraft against PMCC’s allowance for losses and the acceleration of tax payments in the amount of approximately $55 million on these leases.

 

In addition, PMCC has an aggregate finance asset balance of $257 million at December 31, 2005, relating to six Boeing 757, nine Boeing 767 and four McDonnell Douglas (MD-88) aircraft leased to Delta under leveraged leases. In November 2004, PMCC, along with other aircraft lessors, entered into restructuring agreements with Delta on all 19 aircraft. As a result of its agreement, PMCC recorded a charge to the allowance for losses of $40 million in the fourth quarter of 2004. As a result of Delta’s bankruptcy filing in September 2005, the restructuring agreement is no longer in effect, and PMCC is at risk of having its interest in these aircraft foreclosed upon by the senior lenders under the leveraged leases. Should a lease rejection or foreclosure occur, it would also result in the write-off of the finance asset balance against PMCC’s allowance for losses and the acceleration of tax payments on these leases, and may require a further provision to increase the allowance for losses.

 

PMCC also leases three Airbus A-320 aircraft and five British Aerospace RJ85 aircraft to Northwest financed under leveraged leases with an aggregate finance asset balance of $62 million at December 31, 2005. As a result of Northwest’s bankruptcy filing in September 2005, PMCC is at risk of having its interest in these aircraft foreclosed upon by the senior lenders under the leveraged leases. Should a lease rejection or foreclosure occur, it would also result in the write-off of the finance asset balance against PMCC’s allowance for losses and the acceleration of tax payments on these leases.

 

In addition, PMCC’s leveraged leases for ten Airbus A-319 aircraft with Northwest have been rejected in the bankruptcy. As a result of the lease rejection, PMCC, as owner of the aircraft, recorded these assets on its consolidated balance sheet at the lower of net book value or fair market value. The adjustment to fair market value resulted in a $100 million charge against the allowance for losses in the fourth quarter of 2005. The assets are classified as held for sale and reflected in Financial Services

 

-11-


Table of Contents

other assets on the consolidated balance sheet until such time as the assets are either sold or foreclosed upon by the lenders. In addition, the related nonrecourse debt is reflected in Financial Services other liabilities on the consolidated balance sheet until such time as the underlying assets are either sold or foreclosed upon by the senior lenders. The senior lenders have given notice that these aircraft will be sold at a foreclosure auction on March 16, 2006. Should a foreclosure occur, it would result in the acceleration of tax payments on these aircraft of approximately $57 million.

 

PMCC also leases 16 Airbus A-319 aircraft to US Airways, Inc. (“US Airways”) financed under leveraged leases with an aggregate finance asset balance of $150 million at December 31, 2005. In September 2005, US Airways emerged from bankruptcy protection and assumed the leases on PMCC’s aircraft without any changes. Also in September 2005, US Airways and America West Holdings Corp. (“America West”) completed a merger. PMCC leases five Airbus A-320 aircraft and three engines to America West with an aggregate finance asset balance of $44 million at December 31, 2005.

 

In addition, PMCC leases two 265 megawatt (“MW”) natural gas-fired power plants (located in Tiverton, Rhode Island, and Rumford, Maine) to indirect subsidiaries of Calpine financed under leveraged leases with an aggregate finance asset balance of $146 million at December 31, 2005. On December 20, 2005, Calpine filed for bankruptcy protection. In the initial bankruptcy filing, PMCC’s lessees of the Tiverton and Rumford projects were included. On February 6, 2006, these leases were rejected. As a result of the lease rejections, PMCC, as owner of the assets, will record these assets on its consolidated balance sheet at the lower of net book value or fair market value in the first quarter of 2006. The adjustment to fair market value will result in a $72 million charge against the allowance for losses. The assets will be classified as held for sale and reflected in Financial Services other assets on the consolidated balance sheet until such time as the assets are either sold or foreclosed upon by the lenders. In addition, the related nonrecourse debt will be reflected in Financial Services other liabilities on the consolidated balance sheet until such time as the underlying assets are either sold or foreclosed upon by the senior lenders. Should a foreclosure occur, it would result in the acceleration of tax payments on the assets of approximately $33 million.

 

PMCC also leases one 750 MW natural gas-fired power plant (located in Pasadena, Texas) to an indirect subsidiary of Calpine financed under a leveraged lease with an aggregate finance asset balance of $60 million at December 31, 2005. The Pasadena lessee did not file for bankruptcy but could file at a future date. Should a lease rejection or foreclosure occur, it would result in the write-off of the finance asset balance against PMCC’s allowance for losses and the acceleration of tax payments on these leases, and may require a further provision to increase the allowance for losses.

 

Due to continuing uncertainty within its airline portfolio and bankruptcy filings by Delta and Northwest, PMCC recorded a provision for losses of $200 million in September 2005. As a result of this provision, PMCC’s fixed charges coverage ratio did not meet its 1.25:1 requirement under a support agreement with ALG. Accordingly, as required by the support agreement, a support payment of $150 million was made by ALG to PMCC in September 2005.

 

Previously, PMCC recorded provisions for losses of $140 million in the fourth quarter of 2004 and $290 million in the fourth quarter of 2002 for its airline industry exposure. At December 31, 2005, PMCC’s allowance for losses, which includes the provisions recorded by PMCC for its airline industry exposure, was $596 million. It is possible that adverse developments in the airline or other industries may require PMCC to increase its allowance for losses.

 

Business Environment

 

Portions of the information called for by this Item are hereby incorporated by reference to the paragraphs captioned “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of

 

-12-


Table of Contents

Operations – Operating Results by Business Segment – Financial Services” on pages 32 to 33 of the 2005 Annual Report and made a part hereof.

 

Other Matters

 

Customers

 

None of the business segments of the Altria family of companies is dependent upon a single customer or a few customers, the loss of which would have a material adverse effect on Altria Group, Inc.’s consolidated results of operations. However, Kraft’s ten largest customers accounted for approximately 37%, 38% and 38% of its net revenues in 2005, 2004 and 2003, respectively. One of Kraft’s customers, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. accounted for approximately 14%, 14% and 12% of Kraft’s net revenues in 2005, 2004 and 2003, respectively.

 

Employees

 

At December 31, 2005, ALG and its subsidiaries employed approximately 199,000 people worldwide. In January 2004, Kraft announced a three-year restructuring program that is expected to eliminate approximately 6,000 positions. At December 31, 2005, approximately 4,900 of these positions have been eliminated. In addition, in January 2006, Kraft announced plans to expand its restructuring efforts beyond those originally contemplated. The expanded restructuring program will result in the elimination of approximately 8,000 additional positions.

 

Trademarks

 

Trademarks are of material importance to ALG’s consumer products subsidiaries and are protected by registration or otherwise in the United States and most other markets where the related products are sold.

 

Environmental Regulation

 

ALG and its subsidiaries are subject to various federal, state, local and foreign laws and regulations concerning the discharge of materials into the environment, or otherwise related to environmental protection, including, in the United States; the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act and the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (commonly known as “Superfund”), which can impose joint and several liability on each responsible party. In 2005, subsidiaries (or former subsidiaries) of ALG were involved in approximately 94 active matters subjecting them to potential remediation costs under Superfund or other laws and regulations. ALG’s subsidiaries expect to continue to make capital and other expenditures in connection with environmental laws and regulations. Although it is not possible to predict precise levels of environmental-related expenditures, compliance with such laws and regulations, including the payment of any remediation costs and the making of such expenditures, has not had, and is not expected to have, a material adverse effect on Altria Group, Inc.’s consolidated results of operations, capital expenditures, financial position, earnings or competitive position.

 

(d)  Financial Information About Geographic Areas

 

The amounts of net revenues and long-lived assets attributable to each of Altria Group, Inc.’s geographic segments and the amount of export sales from the United States for each of the last three fiscal years are set forth in Note 15.

 

Subsidiaries of ALG export tobacco and tobacco-related products, coffee products, grocery products, cheese and processed meats. In 2005, net revenues from all exports from the United States by these subsidiaries amounted to approximately $4 billion.

 

-13-


Table of Contents

(e)  Available Information

 

ALG is required to file annual, quarterly and special reports, proxy statements and other information with the SEC. Investors may read and copy any document that ALG files, including this Annual Report on Form 10-K, at the SEC’s Public Reference Room at 100 F Street, NE, Washington, D.C. 20549. Investors may obtain information on the operation of the Public Reference Room by calling the SEC at 1-800-SEC-0330. In addition, the SEC maintains an Internet site at http://www.sec.gov that contains reports, proxy and information statements, and other information regarding issuers that file electronically with the SEC; from which investors can electronically access ALG’s SEC filings.

 

ALG makes available free of charge on or through its website (www.altria.com), its Annual Report on Form 10-K, Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q, Current Reports on Form 8-K and amendments to those reports filed or furnished pursuant to Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, as soon as reasonably practicable after ALG electronically files such material with, or furnishes it to, the SEC. Investors can access ALG’s filings with the SEC by visiting www.altria.com/secfilings.

 

The information on ALG’s website is not, and shall not be deemed to be, a part of this report or incorporated into any other filings ALG makes with the SEC.

 

Item 1A. Risk Factors.

 

The following risk factors should be read carefully in connection with evaluating our business and the forward-looking statements contained in this Annual Report. Any of the following risks could materially adversely affect our business, our operating results, our financial condition and the actual outcome of matters as to which forward-looking statements are made in this Annual Report.

 

We ** may from time to time make written or oral forward-looking statements, including statements contained in filings with the SEC, in reports to stockholders and in press releases and investor webcasts. You can identify these forward-looking statements by use of words such as “strategy,” “expects,” “continues,” “plans,” “anticipates,” “believes,” “will,” “estimates,” “intends,” “projects,” “goals,” “targets” and other words of similar meaning. You can also identify them by the fact that they do not relate strictly to historical or current facts.

 

We cannot guarantee that any forward-looking statement will be realized, although we believe we have been prudent in our plans and assumptions. Achievement of future results is subject to risks, uncertainties and inaccurate assumptions. Should known or unknown risks or uncertainties materialize, or should underlying assumptions prove inaccurate, actual results could vary materially from those anticipated, estimated or projected. Investors should bear this in mind as they consider forward-looking statements and whether to invest in or remain invested in Altria Group, Inc.’s securities. In connection with the “safe harbor” provisions of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, we are identifying important risk factors that, individually or in the aggregate, could cause actual results and outcomes to differ materially from those contained in any forward-looking statements made by us; any such statement is qualified by reference to the following cautionary statements. We elaborate on these and other risks we face throughout this document, particularly in the “Business Environment” sections preceding our discussion of operating results of our subsidiaries’ businesses. You should understand that it is not possible to predict or identify all risk factors. Consequently, you should not consider the following to be a complete discussion of all potential risks or uncertainties. We do not undertake to update any forward-looking statement that we may make from time to time.


** This section uses the terms “we,” “our” and “us” when it is not necessary to distinguish among ALG and its various operating subsidiaries or when any distinction is clear from the context.

 

-14-


Table of Contents

Tobacco-Related Litigation .  There is substantial litigation related to tobacco products in the United States and certain foreign jurisdictions. We anticipate that new cases will continue to be filed. Damages claimed in some of the tobacco-related litigation range into the billions of dollars. There are presently 12 cases on appeal in which verdicts were returned against PM USA, including: (i) a $74 billion punitive damages judgment against PM USA in the Engle class action, which has been overturned by a Florida district court of appeal and is currently on appeal to the Florida Supreme Court; and (ii) a compensatory and punitive damages verdict totaling approximately $10.1 billion in the Price case in Illinois, which was reversed by the Illinois Supreme Court in December 2005. Generally, in order to prevent a plaintiff from seeking to collect a judgment while the verdict is being appealed, the defendant must post an appeal bond or negotiate an alternative arrangement with plaintiffs. In the event of future losses at trial, we may not always be able to obtain the required bond or to negotiate an acceptable alternative arrangement.

 

The present litigation environment is substantially uncertain, and it is possible that our business, volume, results of operations, cash flows or financial position could be materially affected by an unfavorable outcome of pending litigation, including certain of the verdicts against us that are on appeal. We intend to continue vigorously defending all tobacco-related litigation, although we may enter into settlement discussions in particular cases if we believe it is in the best interest of our stockholders to do so. The entire litigation environment may not improve sufficiently to enable the Board of Directors to implement any contemplated restructuring alternatives. Please see Note 19 for a discussion of pending tobacco-related litigation.

 

Anti-Tobacco Action in the Public and Private Sectors .  Our tobacco subsidiaries face significant governmental action aimed at reducing the incidence of smoking and seeking to hold us responsible for the adverse health effects associated with both smoking and exposure to environmental tobacco smoke. Governmental actions, combined with the diminishing social acceptance of smoking and private actions to restrict smoking, have resulted in reduced industry volume, and we expect this decline to continue.

 

Excise Taxes .  Cigarettes are subject to substantial excise taxes in the United States and to substantial taxation abroad. Significant increases in cigarette-related taxes and fees have been proposed or enacted and are likely to continue to be proposed or enacted within the United States, the EU and in other foreign jurisdictions. In addition, in certain jurisdictions, PMI’s products are subject to discriminatory tax structures and inconsistent rulings and interpretations on complex methodologies to determine excise and other tax burdens.

 

Tax increases are expected to continue to have an adverse impact on sales of cigarettes by our tobacco subsidiaries, due to lower consumption levels and to a shift in consumer purchases from the premium to the non-premium or discount segments or to other low-priced or low-taxed tobacco products or to counterfeit or contraband products.

 

Increased Competition in the Domestic Tobacco Market .  Settlements of certain tobacco litigation in the United States have resulted in substantial cigarette price increases. PM USA faces competition from lowest priced brands sold by certain domestic and foreign manufacturers that have cost advantages because they are not parties to these settlements. These manufacturers may fail to comply with related state escrow legislation or may take advantage of certain provisions in the legislation that permit the non-settling manufacturers to concentrate their sales in a limited number of states and thereby avoid escrow deposit obligations on the majority of their sales. Additional competition has resulted from diversion into the United States market of cigarettes intended for sale outside the United States, the sale of counterfeit cigarettes by third parties, the sale of cigarettes by third parties over the Internet and by other means designed to avoid collection of applicable taxes and increased imports of foreign lowest priced brands.

 

Governmental Investigations .  From time to time, ALG and its tobacco subsidiaries are subject to governmental investigations on a range of matters. Ongoing investigations include allegations of contraband shipments of cigarettes and allegations of unlawful pricing activities within certain

 

-15-


Table of Contents

international markets. We cannot predict the outcome of those investigations or whether additional investigations may be commenced, and it is possible that our business could be materially affected by an unfavorable outcome of pending or future investigations.

 

New Tobacco Product Technologies .  Our tobacco subsidiaries continue to seek ways to develop and to commercialize new product technologies that have the objective of reducing constituents in tobacco smoke identified by public health authorities as harmful while continuing to offer adult smokers products that meet their taste expectations. We cannot guarantee that our tobacco subsidiaries will succeed in these efforts. If they do not succeed, but one or more of their competitors do, our tobacco subsidiaries may be at a competitive disadvantage.

 

Foreign Currency .  Our international food and tobacco subsidiaries conduct their businesses in local currency and, for purposes of financial reporting, their results are translated into U.S. dollars based on average exchange rates prevailing during a reporting period. During times of a strengthening U.S. dollar, our reported net revenues and operating income will be reduced because the local currency will translate into fewer U.S. dollars.

 

Competition and Economic Downturns .  Each of our consumer products subsidiaries is subject to intense competition, changes in consumer preferences and local economic conditions. To be successful, they must continue to:

 

    promote brand equity successfully;

 

    anticipate and respond to new consumer trends;

 

    develop new products and markets and broaden brand portfolios in order to compete effectively with lower priced products;

 

    improve productivity; and

 

    respond effectively to changing prices for their raw materials.

 

The willingness of consumers to purchase premium cigarette brands and premium food and beverage brands depends in part on local economic conditions. In periods of economic uncertainty, consumers tend to purchase more private label and other economy brands, and the volume of our consumer products subsidiaries could suffer accordingly.

 

Our finance subsidiary, PMCC, holds investments in finance leases, principally in transportation (including aircraft), power generation and manufacturing equipment and facilities. Its lessees are also subject to intense competition and economic conditions. If counterparties to PMCC’s leases fail to manage through difficult economic and competitive conditions, PMCC may have to increase its allowance for losses, which would adversely affect our profitability.

 

Grocery Trade Consolidation .  As the retail grocery trade continues to consolidate and retailers grow larger and become more sophisticated, they demand lower pricing and increased promotional programs. Further, these customers are reducing their inventories and increasing their emphasis on private label products. If Kraft fails to use its scale, marketing expertise, branded products and category leadership positions to respond to these trends, its volume growth could slow or it may need to lower prices or increase promotional support of its products, any of which would adversely affect our profitability.

 

Continued Need to Add Food and Beverage Products in Faster Growing and More Profitable Categories .  The food and beverage industry’s growth potential is constrained by population growth. Kraft’s success depends in part on its ability to grow its business faster than populations are growing in the markets that it serves. One way to achieve that growth is to enhance its portfolio by adding

 

-16-


Table of Contents

products that are in faster growing and more profitable categories. If Kraft does not succeed in making these enhancements, its volume growth may slow, which would adversely affect our profitability.

 

Strengthening Brand Portfolios Through Acquisitions and Divestitures .  One element of the growth strategy of our consumer product subsidiaries is to strengthen their brand portfolios through active programs of selective acquisitions and divestitures. These subsidiaries are constantly investigating potential acquisition candidates and from time to time Kraft sells businesses that are outside its core categories or that do not meet its growth or profitability targets. Acquisition opportunities are limited, and acquisitions present risks of failing to achieve efficient and effective integration, strategic objectives and anticipated revenue improvements and cost savings. There can be no assurance that we will be able to continue to acquire attractive businesses on favorable terms or that all future acquisitions will be quickly accretive to earnings.

 

Food Raw Material Prices .  The raw materials used by our food businesses are largely commodities that experience price volatility caused by external conditions, commodity market fluctuations, currency fluctuations and changes in governmental agricultural programs. Commodity price changes may result in unexpected increases in raw material and packaging costs (which are significantly affected by oil costs), and our operating subsidiaries may be unable to increase their prices to offset these increased costs without suffering reduced volume, net revenues and operating companies income. We do not fully hedge against changes in commodity prices and our hedging strategies may not work as planned.

 

Food Safety, Quality and Health Concerns .  We could be adversely affected if consumers in Kraft’s principal markets lose confidence in the safety and quality of certain food products. Adverse publicity about these types of concerns, whether or not valid, may discourage consumers from buying Kraft’s products or cause production and delivery disruptions. Recent publicity concerning the health implications of obesity and trans-fatty acids could also reduce consumption of certain of Kraft’s products. In addition, Kraft may need to recall some of its products if they become adulterated or misbranded. Kraft may also be liable if the consumption of any of its products causes injury. A widespread product recall or a significant product liability judgment could cause products to be unavailable for a period of time and a loss of consumer confidence in Kraft’s food products and could have a material adverse effect on Kraft’s business and results.

 

Limited Access to Commercial Paper Market .  As a result of actions by credit rating agencies during 2003, ALG currently has limited access to the commercial paper market, and may have to rely on its revolving credit facilities.

 

Asset Impairment .  We periodically calculate the fair value of our goodwill and intangible assets to test for impairment. This calculation may be affected by the market conditions noted above, as well as interest rates and general economic conditions. If an impairment is determined to exist, we will incur impairment losses, which will reduce our earnings.

 

IRS Challenges to PMCC Leases .  The IRS is examining the consolidated tax returns for Altria Group, Inc., which includes PMCC, for years 1996 through 1999. Recently, the IRS has proposed to disallow certain transactions, and may in the future challenge and disallow several more of PMCC’s leveraged leases based on recent Revenue Rulings and a recent IRS Notice addressing specific types of leveraged leases (lease-in/lease-out transactions, qualified technological equipment transactions, and sale-in/lease-out transactions). PMCC believes that the position and supporting case law described in the Revenue Rulings and the IRS Notice as well as those asserted in the proposed adjustments are incorrectly applied to PMCC’s transactions and that its leveraged leases are factually and legally distinguishable in material respects from the IRS’s position. PMCC and ALG intend to vigorously defend against any challenges based on that position through administrative appeals and litigation, if necessary, and ALG believes that, given the strength of PMCC’s position, it should

 

-17-


Table of Contents

ultimately prevail. However, should PMCC’s position not be upheld, PMCC may have to accelerate the payment of significant amounts of federal income tax and lower its earnings to reflect the recalculation of the income from the affected leveraged leases.

 

Item 1B. Unresolved Staff Comments.

 

None.

 

Item 2. Properties.

 

Tobacco Products

 

PM USA owns and operates four tobacco manufacturing and processing facilities – three in the Richmond, Virginia area and one in Cabarrus County, North Carolina. In April 2005, PM USA announced the construction of a research and technology center in Richmond, Virginia, which is estimated to cost $350 million. When completed in 2007, the facility will nearly double PM USA’s research space and will house more than 500 scientists, engineers and support staff.

 

Subsidiaries and affiliates of PMI own, lease or have an interest in 69 cigarette or component manufacturing facilities in 33 countries outside the United States, including cigarette manufacturing facilities in Bergen Op Zoom, the Netherlands; Berlin, Germany; and St. Petersburg, Russia. In 2005, PMI continued to invest in and expand its international manufacturing base, including making significant investments in facilities located in Germany, Russia, the Czech Republic, Serbia, Ukraine and Australia, as well as a research facility in Switzerland.

 

 

Food Products

 

Kraft has 175 manufacturing and processing facilities, 59 of which are located in the United States. Kraft owns 168 and leases 7 of these facilities. Outside the United States, Kraft has 116 manufacturing and processing facilities located in 45 countries. In addition, Kraft has 338 distribution centers and depots, of which 43 are located outside the United States. Kraft owns 50 distribution centers and depots, with the remainder being leased.

 

In January 2004, Kraft announced a three-year restructuring program. As part of this program, Kraft anticipated the closure or sale of up to 20 plants. In 2005, Kraft announced the closing of 6 plants, for a total of 19 since January 2004, as part of the restructuring program. In addition, in January 2006, Kraft announced plans to expand its restructuring efforts beyond those originally contemplated. The expanded restructuring program will result in the anticipated closure of up to 20 additional facilities, for a total of up to 40 facilities.

 

General

 

The plants and properties owned and operated by ALG’s subsidiaries are maintained in good condition and are believed to be suitable and adequate for present needs.

 

Item 3. Legal Proceedings.

 

Legal proceedings covering a wide range of matters are pending or threatened in various United States and foreign jurisdictions against ALG, its subsidiaries and affiliates, including PM USA and PMI, as well as their respective indemnitees. Various types of claims are raised in these proceedings, including product liability, consumer protection, antitrust, tax, contraband shipments, patent infringement, employment matters, claims for contribution and claims of competitors and distributors.

 

-18-


Table of Contents

Overview of Tobacco-Related Litigation

 

Types and Number of Cases

 

Pending claims related to tobacco products generally fall within the following categories: (i) smoking and health cases alleging personal injury brought on behalf of individual plaintiffs, (ii) smoking and health cases primarily alleging personal injury or seeking court supervised programs for ongoing medical monitoring and purporting to be brought on behalf of a class of individual plaintiffs, including cases in which the aggregated claims of a number of individual plaintiffs are to be tried in a single proceeding, (iii) health care cost recovery cases brought by governmental (both domestic and foreign) and non-governmental plaintiffs seeking reimbursement for health care expenditures allegedly caused by cigarette smoking and/or disgorgement of profits, (iv) class action suits alleging that the uses of the terms “Lights” and “Ultra Lights” constitute deceptive and unfair trade practices, common law fraud, or violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”), and (v) other tobacco-related litigation. Other tobacco-related litigation includes suits by foreign governments seeking to recover damages resulting from the allegedly illegal importation of cigarettes into various jurisdictions, suits by former asbestos manufacturers seeking contribution or reimbursement for amounts expended in connection with the defense and payment of asbestos claims that were allegedly caused in whole or in part by cigarette smoking, and various antitrust suits. Damages claimed in some of the tobacco-related litigation range into the billions of dollars. Plaintiffs’ theories of recovery and the defenses raised in the smoking and health, health care cost recovery and Lights/Ultra Lights cases are discussed below.

 

The table below lists the number of certain tobacco-related cases pending in the United States against PM USA and, in some instances, ALG or PMI, as of February 15, 2006, December 31, 2004 and December 31, 2003, and a page-reference to further discussions of each type of case.

 

Type of Case


 

Number of

Cases

Pending as of

February 15,

2006


 

Number of

Cases

Pending as of

December 31,
2004


 

Number of

Cases

Pending as of

December 31,
2003


  Page References

Individual Smoking and Health Cases (1)

  228   222   423   26; Exhibit 99.1, pages 1-2

Smoking and Health Class Actions and Aggregated Claims Litigation (2)

  10   9   12   26; Exhibit 99.1, pages 2-3

Health Care Cost Recovery Actions

  4   10   13   27-30; Exhibit 99.1, pages 3-6

Lights/Ultra Lights Class Actions

  24   21   21   30-32; Exhibit 99.1, pages 6-9

Tobacco Price Cases

  2   2   28   32; Exhibit 99.1, pages 9-10

Cigarette Contraband Cases

  0   2   5   33-34; Exhibit 99.1, page 11

Asbestos Contribution Cases

  1   1   7   34; Exhibit 99.1, page 11

 

(1) Does not include 2,626 cases brought by flight attendants seeking compensatory damages for personal injuries allegedly caused by exposure to environmental tobacco smoke (“ETS”). The flight attendants allege that they are members of an ETS smoking and health class action, which was settled in 1997. The terms of the court-approved settlement in that case allow class members to file individual lawsuits seeking compensatory damages, but prohibit them from seeking punitive damages. Also, does not include nine individual smoking and health cases brought against certain retailers that are indemnitees of PM USA.

 

(2) Includes as one case the aggregated claims of 928 individuals that are proposed to be tried in a single proceeding in West Virginia. In December 2005, the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals ruled that the United States Constitution does not preclude a trial in two phases in this case. Issues related to defendants’ conduct, plaintiffs’ entitlement to punitive damages and a punitive damages multiplier, if any, would be determined in the first phase. The second phase would consist of individual trials to determine liability, if any, and compensatory damages.

 

-19-


Table of Contents

There are also a number of other tobacco-related actions pending outside the United States against PMI and its affiliates and subsidiaries, including an estimated 133 individual smoking and health cases as of February 15, 2006 (Argentina (59), Australia (2), Brazil (56), Chile (3), Colombia (1), Israel (2), Italy (4), the Philippines (1), Poland (1), Scotland (1), Spain (2) and Turkey (1)), compared with approximately 121 such cases on December 31, 2004, and approximately 99 such cases on December 31, 2003. In addition, in Italy, 41 cases are pending in the Italian equivalent of small claims court where damages are limited to 2,000 per case, and four cases are pending in Finland and one in Israel against defendants that are indemnitees of a subsidiary of PMI.

 

In addition, as of February 15, 2006, there were three smoking and health putative class actions pending outside the United States against PMI in Brazil (1), Israel (1), and Poland (1) compared with three such cases on December 31, 2004, and six such cases on December 31, 2003. Four health care cost recovery actions are pending in Israel (1), Canada (1), France (1) and Spain (1) against PMI or its affiliates, and two Lights/Ultra Lights class actions are pending in Israel.

 

Pending and Upcoming Trials

 

As of February 15, 2006, an estimated four smoking and health cases against PM USA are scheduled for trial in 2006. Cases against other tobacco companies are also scheduled for trial through the end of 2006. Trial dates are subject to change.

 

Recent Trial Results

 

Since January 1999, verdicts have been returned in 44 smoking and health, Lights/Ultra Lights and health care cost recovery cases in which PM USA was a defendant. Verdicts in favor of PM USA and other defendants were returned in 28 of the 44 cases. These 28 cases were tried in California (4), Florida (9), Mississippi (1), Missouri (2), New Hampshire (1), New Jersey (1), New York (3), Ohio (2), Pennsylvania (1), Rhode Island (1), Tennessee (2), and West Virginia (1). Plaintiffs’ appeals or post-trial motions challenging the verdicts are pending in California, Florida, Missouri, and Pennsylvania. A motion for a new trial has been granted in one of the cases in Florida. In addition, in December 2002, a court dismissed an individual smoking and health case in California at the end of trial. Also, in July 2005, a jury in Tennessee returned a verdict in favor of PM USA in a case in which plaintiffs had challenged PM USA’s retail promotional and merchandising programs under the Robinson-Patman Act.

 

Of the 16 cases in which verdicts were returned in favor of plaintiffs, four have reached final resolution. A $17.8 million verdict against defendants in a health care cost recovery case (including $6.8 million against PM USA) was reversed, and all claims were dismissed with prejudice in February 2005 ( Blue Cross/Blue Shield ). In October 2004, after exhausting all appeals, PM USA paid $3.3 million (including interest of $285,000) in an individual smoking and health case in Florida ( Eastman ). In March 2005, after exhausting all appeals, PM USA paid $17 million (including interest of $6.4 million) in an individual smoking and health case in California ( Henley ). In December 2005, after exhausting all appeals, PM USA paid $328,759 (including interest of $78,259) as its share of the judgment amount and interest in a flight attendant ETS case in Florida ( French ) and will pay attorneys’ fees yet to be determined.

 

-20-


Table of Contents

The chart below lists the verdict and post-trial developments in the remaining 12 pending cases that have gone to trial since January 1999 in which verdicts were returned in favor of plaintiffs.

 

Date


  Location of
Court/
Name of
Plaintiff


  Type of Case

 

Verdict


 

Post-Trial Developments


March

2005

  New York/
Rose
  Individual
Smoking and
Health
  $3.42 million in compensatory damages against two defendants, including PM USA, and $17.1 million in punitive damages against PM USA.   In December 2005, PM USA’s post-trial motions challenging the verdict were denied by the trial court. PM USA has appealed.

October

2004

  Florida/
Arnitz
  Individual
Smoking and
Health
  $240,000 against PM USA.   PM USA’s appeal is pending.

May

2004

  Louisiana/
Scott
  Smoking and
Health Class
Action
  Approximately $590 million, against all defendants including PM USA, jointly and severally, to fund a 10-year smoking cessation program.   In June 2004, the state trial court entered judgment in the amount of the verdict of $590 million, plus prejudgment interest accruing from the date the suit commenced. As of February 15, 2006, the amount of prejudgment interest was approximately $395 million. PM USA’s share of the verdict and prejudgment interest has not been allocated. Defendants, including PM USA, have appealed. See Scott Class Action below.

November

2003

  Missouri/
Thompson
  Individual
Smoking and
Health
  $2.1 million in compensatory damages against all defendants, including $837,403 against PM USA.   PM USA’s appeal is pending.

March

2003

  Illinois/
Price
  Lights/Ultra
Lights Class
Action
  $7.1005 billion in compensatory damages and $3 billion in punitive damages against PM USA.   In December 2005, the Illinois Supreme Court reversed the trial court’s judgment in favor of the plaintiffs and remanded the case to the trial court with instructions to dismiss the case against PM USA. See the discussion of the Price case under the heading “Lights/Ultra Lights Cases.”

October

2002

  California/
Bullock
  Individual
Smoking and
Health
  $850,000 in compensatory damages and $28 billion in punitive damages against PM USA.   In December 2002, the trial court reduced the punitive damages award to $28 million; PM USA and plaintiff have appealed.

 

-21-


Table of Contents

Date


  Location of
Court/
Name of
Plaintiff


  Type of Case

 

Verdict


 

Post-Trial Developments


June

2002

  Florida/
Lukacs
  Individual
Smoking and
Health
  $37.5 million in compensatory damages against all defendants, including PM USA.   In March 2003, the trial court reduced the damages award to $24.86 million. PM USA’s share of the damages award is approximately $6 million. The court has not yet entered the judgment on the jury verdict. If a judgment is entered in this case, PM USA intends to appeal.

March

2002

  Oregon/
Schwarz
  Individual
Smoking and
Health
  $168,500 in compensatory damages and $150 million in punitive damages against PM USA.   In May 2002, the trial court reduced the punitive damages award to $100 million; PM USA and plaintiff have appealed.

June

2001

  California/
Boeken
  Individual
Smoking and
Health
  $5.5 million in compensatory damages and $3 billion in punitive damages against PM USA.   In August 2001, the trial court reduced the punitive damages award to $100 million. In September 2004, the California Second District Court of Appeal reduced the punitive damages award to $50 million but otherwise affirmed the judgment entered in the case. Plaintiff and PM USA each sought rehearing. In April 2005, the Court of Appeal reaffirmed the award amount set in its September 2004 ruling. In August 2005, the California Supreme Court refused to hear the petitions of PM USA and plaintiff for further review. Following the California Supreme Court’s refusal to hear the parties’ appeal, PM USA recorded a provision in the 2005 statement of earnings of approximately $80 million (including interest) in connection with this case. Plaintiff and PM USA have petitioned the United States Supreme Court for further review. Plaintiff has agreed not to execute on the judgment pending the disposition of PM USA’s petition.

 

-22-


Table of Contents

Date


  Location of
Court/
Name of
Plaintiff


  Type of Case

 

Verdict


 

Post-Trial Developments


July

2000

  Florida/
Engle
  Smoking and
Health Class
Action
  $145 billion in punitive damages against all defendants, including $74 billion against PM USA.   In May 2003, the Florida Third District Court of Appeal reversed the judgment entered by the state trial court and instructed the trial court to order the decertification of the class. Plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration was denied in September 2003, and plaintiffs petitioned the Florida Supreme Court for further review. In May 2004, the Florida Supreme Court agreed to review the case, and the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in November 2004. See “ Engle Class Action ” below.

March

2000

  California/
Whiteley
  Individual
Smoking and
Health
  $1.72 million in compensatory damages against PM USA and another defendant, and $10 million in punitive damages against each of PM USA and the other defendant.   In April 2004, the California First District Court of Appeal entered judgment in favor of defendants on plaintiff’s negligent design claims, and reversed and remanded for a new trial on plaintiff’s fraud-related claims.

 

-23-


Table of Contents

Date


  Location of
Court/
Name of
Plaintiff


  Type of Case

 

Verdict


 

Post-Trial Developments


March

1999

  Oregon/
Williams
  Individual
Smoking
and
Health
  $800,000 in compensatory damages, $21,500 in medical expenses and $79.5 million in punitive damages against PM USA.   The trial court reduced the punitive damages award to $32 million, and PM USA and plaintiff appealed. In June 2002, the Oregon Court of Appeals reinstated the $79.5 million punitive damages award. Following the Oregon Supreme Court’s refusal to hear PM USA’s appeal, PM USA recorded a provision of $32 million in connection with this case and petitioned the United States Supreme Court for further review. In October 2003, the United States Supreme Court set aside the Oregon appellate court’s ruling, and directed the Oregon court to reconsider the case in light of the 2003 State Farm decision by the United States Supreme Court, which limited punitive damages. In June 2004, the Oregon Court of Appeals reinstated the $79.5 million punitive damages award. On February 2, 2006, the Oregon Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision. In February 2006, the Oregon Supreme Court granted PM USA’s motion to stay the issuance of the appellate judgment pending the filing of, and action on, its petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Supreme Court. PM USA intends to pursue other avenues of relief.

 

In addition to the cases discussed above, in October 2003, a three-judge panel of an appellate court in Brazil reversed a lower court’s dismissal of an individual smoking and health case and ordered PMI’s Brazilian affiliate to pay plaintiff approximately $256,000 and other unspecified damages. PMI’s Brazilian affiliate appealed. In December 2004, the three-judge panel’s decision was vacated by an en banc panel of the appellate court, which upheld the trial court’s dismissal of the case. Also, in April 2005, a labor court trial judge entered judgment against PMI’s Venezuelan affiliate in favor of a former

 

-24-


Table of Contents

employee plaintiff in the amount of approximately $150,000 in connection with an individual claim involving smoking and health issues. PMI’s Venezuelan affiliate appealed. In August 2005, the appellate court reversed the lower court’s decision. Plaintiff appealed to the Supreme Court and, in February 2006, this appeal was rejected.

 

With respect to certain adverse verdicts currently on appeal, excluding amounts relating to the Engle and Price cases, as of February 15, 2006, PM USA has posted various forms of security totaling approximately $352 million, the majority of which have been collateralized with cash deposits, to obtain stays of judgments pending appeals. The cash deposits are included in other assets on the consolidated balance sheets.

 

Engle Class Action

 

In July 2000, in the second phase of the Engle smoking and health class action in Florida, a jury returned a verdict assessing punitive damages totaling approximately $145 billion against various defendants, including $74 billion against PM USA. Following entry of judgment, PM USA posted a bond in the amount of $100 million and appealed.

 

In May 2001, the trial court approved a stipulation providing that execution of the punitive damages component of the Engle judgment will remain stayed against PM USA and the other participating defendants through the completion of all judicial review. As a result of the stipulation, PM USA placed $500 million into a separate interest-bearing escrow account that, regardless of the outcome of the appeal, will be paid to the court and the court will determine how to allocate or distribute it consistent with Florida Rules of Civil Procedure. In July 2001, PM USA also placed $1.2 billion into an interest-bearing escrow account, which will be returned to PM USA should it prevail in its appeal of the case. (The $1.2 billion escrow account is included in the December 31, 2005 and 2004 consolidated balance sheets as other assets. Interest income on the $1.2 billion escrow account is paid to PM USA quarterly and is being recorded as earned, in interest and other debt expense, net, in the consolidated statements of earnings.) In connection with the stipulation, PM USA recorded a $500 million pre-tax charge in its consolidated statement of earnings for the quarter ended March 31, 2001. In May 2003, the Florida Third District Court of Appeal reversed the judgment entered by the trial court and instructed the trial court to order the decertification of the class. Plaintiffs petitioned the Florida Supreme Court for further review and, in May 2004, the Florida Supreme Court agreed to review the case. Oral arguments were heard in November 2004.

 

Scott Class Action

 

In July 2003, following the first phase of the trial in the Scott class action, in which plaintiffs sought creation of a fund to pay for medical monitoring and smoking cessation programs, a Louisiana jury returned a verdict in favor of defendants, including PM USA, in connection with plaintiffs’ medical monitoring claims, but also found that plaintiffs could benefit from smoking cessation assistance. The jury also found that cigarettes as designed are not defective but that the defendants failed to disclose all they knew about smoking and diseases and marketed their products to minors. In May 2004, in the second phase of the trial, the jury awarded plaintiffs approximately $590 million, against all defendants jointly and severally, to fund a 10-year smoking cessation program. In June 2004, the court entered judgment, which awarded plaintiffs the approximately $590 million jury award plus prejudgment interest accruing from the date the suit commenced. As of February 15, 2006, the amount of prejudgment interest was approximately $395 million. PM USA’s share of the jury award and prejudgment interest has not been allocated. Defendants, including PM USA, have appealed. Pursuant to a stipulation of the parties, the trial court entered an order setting the amount of the bond at $50 million for all defendants in accordance with an article of the Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure, and a Louisiana statute (the “bond cap law”) fixing the amount of security in civil cases involving a signatory to the MSA (as defined

 

-25-


Table of Contents

below). Under the terms of the stipulation, plaintiffs reserve the right to contest, at a later date, the sufficiency or amount of the bond on any grounds including the applicability or constitutionality of the bond cap law. In September 2004, defendants collectively posted a bond in the amount of $50 million.

 

Smoking and Health Litigation

 

Overview

 

Plaintiffs’ allegations of liability in smoking and health 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, breach of special duty, conspiracy, concert of action, violations of deceptive trade practice laws and consumer protection statutes, and claims under the federal and state anti-racketeering statutes. In certain of these cases, plaintiffs claim that cigarette smoking exacerbated the injuries caused by their exposure to asbestos. Plaintiffs in the smoking and health actions seek various forms of relief, including compensatory and punitive damages, treble/multiple damages and other statutory damages and penalties, creation of medical monitoring and smoking cessation funds, disgorgement of profits, and injunctive and equitable relief. Defenses raised in these cases include lack of proximate cause, assumption of the risk, comparative fault and/or contributory negligence, statutes of limitations and preemption by the Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act.

 

Caronia Class Action

 

In January 2006, plaintiffs brought this putative class action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York on behalf of New York residents who are: age 50 or older; have smoked the Marlboro brand for 20 pack-years or more; and have neither been diagnosed with lung cancer nor are under investigation by a physician for suspected lung cancer. Plaintiffs seek the creation of a court-supervised program providing members of the purported class Low Dose CT Scanning in order to identify and diagnose lung cancer.

 

Smoking and Health Class Actions

 

Since the dismissal in May 1996 of a purported nationwide class action brought on behalf of allegedly addicted smokers, plaintiffs have filed numerous putative smoking and health class action suits in various state and federal courts. In general, these cases purport to be brought on behalf of residents of a particular state or states (although a few cases purport to be nationwide in scope) and raise addiction claims and, in many cases, claims of physical injury as well.

 

Class certification has been denied or reversed by courts in 56 smoking and health class actions involving PM USA in Arkansas (1), the District of Columbia (2), Florida (1), Illinois (2), Iowa (1), Kansas (1), Louisiana (1), Maryland (1), Michigan (1), Minnesota (1), Nevada (29), New Jersey (6), New York (2), Ohio (1), Oklahoma (1), Pennsylvania (1), Puerto Rico (1), South Carolina (1), Texas (1) and Wisconsin (1). A class remains certified in the Scott class action discussed above.

 

A purported smoking and health class action is pending in Brazil. In that case, the trial court has issued an order finding that the action was valid under the Brazilian Consumer Defense Code. The order contemplates a second stage of the case in which individuals are to file their claims. The trial court awarded the equivalent of approximately $350 per smoker per year of smoking for moral damages and has indicated that material damages, if any, will be assessed in a second phase of the case. Defendants appealed and in March 2006, the 2nd Public Chamber of the Court of Appeals of Sao Paulo ruled that it does not have jurisdiction over the appeal because the case does not involve a matter of public law. The appeal will now be transferred to one of the private chambers of the Court of Appeals of Sao Paulo and assigned to a new judge. The trial court has granted defendants’ motion to stay its decision while the appeal is pending.

 

-26-


Table of Contents

Health Care Cost Recovery Litigation

 

Overview

 

In health care cost recovery litigation, domestic and foreign governmental entities and non-governmental plaintiffs seek reimbursement of health care cost expenditures allegedly caused by tobacco products and, in some cases, of future expenditures and damages as well. Relief sought by some but not all plaintiffs includes punitive damages, multiple damages and other statutory damages and penalties, injunctions prohibiting alleged marketing and sales to minors, disclosure of research, disgorgement of profits, funding of anti-smoking programs, additional disclosure of nicotine yields, and payment of attorney and expert witness fees.

 

The claims asserted include the claim that cigarette manufacturers were “unjustly enriched” by plaintiffs’ payment of health care costs allegedly attributable to smoking, as well as claims of indemnity, negligence, strict liability, breach of express and implied warranty, violation of a voluntary undertaking or special duty, fraud, negligent misrepresentation, conspiracy, public nuisance, claims under federal and state statutes governing consumer fraud, antitrust, deceptive trade practices and false advertising, and claims under federal and state anti-racketeering statutes.

 

Defenses raised include lack of proximate cause, remoteness of injury, failure to state a valid claim, lack of benefit, adequate remedy at law, “unclean hands” (namely, that plaintiffs cannot obtain equitable relief because they participated in, and benefited from, the sale of cigarettes), lack of antitrust standing and injury, federal preemption, lack of statutory authority to bring suit, and statutes of limitations. In addition, defendants argue that they should be entitled to “set off” any alleged damages to the extent the plaintiffs benefit economically from the sale of cigarettes through the receipt of excise taxes or otherwise. Defendants also argue that these cases are improper because plaintiffs must proceed under principles of subrogation and assignment. Under traditional theories of recovery, a payor of medical costs (such as an insurer) can seek recovery of health care costs from a third party solely by “standing in the shoes” of the injured party. Defendants argue that plaintiffs should be required to bring any actions as subrogees of individual health care recipients and should be subject to all defenses available against the injured party.

 

Although there have been some decisions to the contrary, most judicial decisions have dismissed all or most health care cost recovery claims against cigarette manufacturers. Nine federal circuit courts of appeals and six state appellate courts, relying primarily on grounds that plaintiffs’ claims were too remote, have ordered or affirmed dismissals of health care cost recovery actions. The United States Supreme Court has refused to consider plaintiffs’ appeals from the cases decided by five circuit courts of appeals.

 

A number of foreign governmental entities have filed health care cost recovery actions in the United States. Such suits have been brought in the United States by 13 countries, a Canadian province, 11 Brazilian states and 11 Brazilian cities. Of these 36 cases, 34 have been dismissed, and the two cases brought by the Republic of Panama and the Brazilian State of Sao Paulo remain pending. In addition to the cases brought in the United States, health care cost recovery actions have also been brought in Israel (1), the Marshall Islands (1; dismissed), Canada (1), France (1; dismissed, but on appeal) and Spain (1; dismissal affirmed on appeal), and other entities have stated that they are considering filing such actions. In September 2005, in the case in Canada, the Canadian Supreme Court ruled that legislation permitting the lawsuit is constitutional, and, as a result, the case which had previously been dismissed by the trial court will now proceed.

 

In March 1999, in the first health care cost recovery case to go to trial, an Ohio jury returned a verdict in favor of defendants on all counts. In addition, a $17.8 million verdict against defendants (including $6.8 million against PM USA) was reversed in a health care cost recovery case in New York, and all claims were dismissed with prejudice in February 2005 ( Blue Cross/Blue Shield ). The health care cost

 

-27-


Table of Contents

recovery case brought by the City of St. Louis, Missouri and approximately 50 Missouri hospitals, in which PM USA and ALG are defendants, remains pending without a trial date.

 

Settlements of Health Care Cost Recovery Litigation

 

In November 1998, PM USA and certain other United States tobacco product manufacturers entered into the Master Settlement Agreement (the “MSA”) with 46 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Guam, the United States Virgin Islands, American Samoa and the Northern Marianas to settle asserted and unasserted health care cost recovery and other claims. PM USA and certain other United States tobacco product manufacturers had previously settled similar claims brought by Mississippi, Florida, Texas and Minnesota (together with the MSA, the “State Settlement Agreements”). The State Settlement Agreements require that the domestic tobacco industry make substantial annual payments in the following amounts (excluding future annual payments under the agreement with the tobacco grower states discussed below), subject to adjustments for several factors, including inflation, market share and industry volume: 2006 through 2007, $8.4 billion each year; and thereafter, $9.4 billion each year. In addition, the domestic tobacco industry is required to pay settling plaintiffs’ attorneys’ fees, subject to an annual cap of $500 million. Pursuant to the provisions of the MSA, domestic tobacco product manufacturers, including PM USA, who are original signatories to the MSA (“OPMs”) are participating in a proceeding that may result in a downward adjustment to the amounts paid by the OPMs to the states and territories that are parties to the MSA for the year 2003. The availability and the precise amount of that adjustment depend on a number of factors and will likely not be determined until some time in 2006 or later. If the adjustment does become available, it may be applied as a credit against future payments due from the OPMs.

 

The State Settlement Agreements also include provisions relating to advertising and marketing restrictions, public disclosure of certain industry documents, limitations on challenges to certain tobacco control and underage use laws, restrictions on lobbying activities and other provisions.

 

As part of the MSA, the settling defendants committed to work cooperatively with the tobacco-growing states to address concerns about the potential adverse economic impact of the MSA on tobacco growers and quota holders. To that end, in 1999, four of the major domestic tobacco product manufacturers, including PM USA, and the grower states, established the National Tobacco Grower Settlement Trust (“NTGST”), a trust fund to provide aid to tobacco growers and quota holders. The trust was to be funded by these four manufacturers over 12 years with payments, prior to application of various adjustments, scheduled to total $5.15 billion. Remaining industry payments (2006 through 2008, $500 million each year; 2009 and 2010, $295 million each year) were to be subject to adjustment for several factors, including inflation, United States cigarette volume and certain contingent events, and, in general, were to be allocated based on each manufacturer’s relative market share. Provisions of the NTGST allow for offsets to the extent that payments are made to growers and quota holders as part of a legislated end to the federal tobacco quota and price support program.

 

In October 2004, the Fair and Equitable Tobacco Reform Act of 2004 (“FETRA”) was signed into law. FETRA provides for the elimination of the federal tobacco quota and price support program through an industry-funded buy-out of tobacco growers and quota holders. The cost of the buy-out is estimated at approximately $9.6 billion and will be paid over 10 years by manufacturers and importers of all tobacco products. The cost will be allocated based on the relative market shares of manufacturers and importers of all tobacco products. The quota buy-out payments will offset already scheduled payments to the NTGST. Manufacturers and importers of tobacco products are also obligated to cover any losses (up to $500 million) that the government may incur on the disposition of tobacco pool stock accumulated under the previous tobacco price support program. In September 2005, PM USA was billed a total of $138 million for its share of tobacco pool stock losses and recorded the amount as an expense. Altria Group, Inc. does not currently anticipate that the quota buy-out will have a material adverse impact on its consolidated results in 2006 and beyond.

 

-28-


Table of Contents

Following the enactment of FETRA, the trustee of the NTGST and the state entities conveying NTGST payments to tobacco growers and quota holders sued tobacco product manufacturers alleging that the offset provisions did not apply to payments due in 2004. In December 2004, a North Carolina trial court ruled that FETRA’s enactment had triggered the offset provisions and that the tobacco product manufacturers, including PM USA, were entitled to receive a refund of amounts paid to the NTGST during the first three quarters of 2004 and were not required to make the payments that would otherwise have been due during the fourth quarter of 2004. Plaintiffs appealed, and in August 2005, the North Carolina Supreme Court reversed the trial court’s ruling and remanded the case to the lower court for additional proceedings. In October 2005, the trial court ordered that the trustee could distribute the amounts that the tobacco companies had already paid to the NTGST during the first three quarters of 2004. PM USA’s portion of these payments was approximately $174 million. The trial court also ruled that the manufacturers must make the payment originally scheduled to be made to the NTGST in December 2004, with interest. PM USA’s portion of the principal was approximately $58 million, which PM USA paid in October 2005. In November 2005, PM USA paid $2 million in interest on the December 2004 payment.

 

The State Settlement Agreements have materially adversely affected the volumes of PM USA, and ALG believes that they may also materially adversely affect the results of operations, cash flows or financial position of PM USA and Altria Group, Inc. in future periods. The degree of the adverse impact will depend on, among other things, the rate of decline in United States cigarette sales in the premium and discount segments, PM USA’s share of the domestic premium and discount cigarette segments, and the effect of any resulting cost advantage of manufacturers not subject to the MSA and the other State Settlement Agreements.

 

In April 2004, a lawsuit was filed in state court in Los Angeles, California, on behalf of all California residents who purchased cigarettes in California from April 2000 to the present, alleging that the MSA enabled the defendants, including PM USA and ALG, to engage in unlawful price fixing and market sharing agreements. The complaint sought damages and also sought to enjoin defendants from continuing to operate under those provisions of the MSA that allegedly violate California law. In June 2004, plaintiffs dismissed this case and refiled a substantially similar complaint in federal court in San Francisco, California. The new complaint is brought on behalf of the same purported class but differs in that it covers purchases from June 2000 to the present, names the Attorney General of California as a defendant, and does not name ALG as a defendant. In March 2005, the trial court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the case. Plaintiffs have appealed.

 

There is a suit pending against New York state officials, in which importers of cigarettes allege that the MSA and certain New York statutes enacted in connection with the MSA violate federal antitrust law. Neither ALG nor PM USA is a defendant in this case. In September 2004, the court denied plaintiffs’ motion to preliminarily enjoin the MSA and certain related New York statutes, but the court issued a preliminary injunction against an amendment repealing the “allocable share” provision of the New York Escrow Statute. Additionally, in a suit pending in New York federal court, plaintiffs assert that the statutes enacted by New York and the other states in connection with the MSA violate the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution. In addition, similar lawsuits have been brought in other states on similar antitrust, Commerce Clause and/or other constitutional theories, including Kentucky, Arkansas, Kansas, Louisiana, Nebraska, Tennessee and Oklahoma, and a similar proceeding has been brought under the provisions of the North American Free Trade Agreement in the United Nations. Neither ALG nor PM USA is a defendant in these cases.

 

Federal Government’s Lawsuit

 

In 1999, the United States government filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia against various cigarette manufacturers, including PM USA, and others, including ALG,

 

-29-


Table of Contents

asserting claims under three federal statutes, the Medical Care Recovery Act (“MCRA”), the Medicare Secondary Payer (“MSP”) provisions of the Social Security Act and the civil provisions of RICO. Trial of the case ended in June 2005, and post-trial briefings were completed in September 2005. The lawsuit seeks to recover an unspecified amount of health care costs for tobacco-related illnesses allegedly caused by defendants’ fraudulent and tortious conduct and paid for by the government under various federal health care programs, including Medicare, military and veterans’ health benefits programs, and the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program. The complaint alleges that such costs total more than $20 billion annually. It also seeks what it alleges to be equitable and declaratory relief, including disgorgement of profits which arose from defendants’ allegedly tortious conduct, an injunction prohibiting certain actions by the defendants, and a declaration that the defendants are liable for the federal government’s future costs of providing health care resulting from defendants’ alleged past tortious and wrongful conduct. In September 2000, the trial court dismissed the government’s MCRA and MSP claims, but permitted discovery to proceed on the government’s claims for relief under the civil provisions of RICO.

 

The government alleged that disgorgement by defendants of approximately $280 billion is an appropriate remedy. In May 2004, the trial court issued an order denying defendants’ motion for partial summary judgment limiting the disgorgement remedy. In February 2005, a panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit held that disgorgement is not a remedy available to the government under the civil provisions of RICO and entered summary judgment in favor of defendants with respect to the disgorgement claim. In April 2005, the Court of Appeals denied the government’s motion for rehearing. In July 2005, the government petitioned the United States Supreme Court for further review of the Court of Appeals’ ruling that disgorgement is not an available remedy, and in October 2005, the Supreme Court denied the petition.

 

In June 2005, the government filed with the trial court its proposed final judgment seeking remedies of approximately $14 billion, including $10 billion over a five-year period to fund a national smoking cessation program and $4 billion over a ten-year period to fund a public education and counter-marketing campaign. Further, the government’s proposed remedy would require defendants to pay additional monies to these programs if targeted reductions in the smoking rate of those under 21 are not achieved according to a prescribed timetable. The government’s proposed remedies also include a series of measures and restrictions applicable to cigarette business operations – including, but not limited to, restrictions on advertising and marketing, potential measures with respect to certain price promotional activities and research and development, disclosure requirements for certain confidential data and implementation of a monitoring system with potential broad powers over cigarette operations.

 

In July 2005, the court granted the motion of six organizations to intervene in the case for the limited purpose of being heard on the issue of permissible and appropriate remedies. Those organizations argued that because the government’s proposed final judgment sought remedies more limited than what had been sought earlier in the case, the government no longer adequately represents the interests of those organizations. Those organizations have submitted proposals for remedies in addition to those sought by the government. In September 2005, the trial court granted six motions filed by various organizations for leave to file amicus curiae briefs. Two additional motions remain pending, including a motion for leave to file an amicus curiae brief advocating that as part of any relief granted in the case, the court direct more than $14 billion over the next ten years to various purposes specified in their brief.

 

Lights/Ultra Lights Cases

 

Overview

 

Plaintiffs in these class actions (some of which have not been certified as such), allege, among other things, that the uses of the terms “Lights” and/or “Ultra Lights” constitute deceptive and unfair trade

 

-30-


Table of Contents

practices, common law fraud, or RICO violations, and seek injunctive and equitable relief, including restitution and, in certain cases, punitive damages. These class actions have been brought against PM USA and, in certain instances, ALG and PMI or its subsidiaries, on behalf of individuals who purchased and consumed various brands of cigarettes, including Marlboro Lights, Marlboro Ultra Lights, Virginia Slims Lights and Superslims, Merit Lights and Cambridge Lights. Defenses raised in these cases include lack of misrepresentation, lack of causation, injury, and damages, the statute of limitations, express preemption by the Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act and implied preemption by the policies and directives of the Federal Trade Commission, non-liability under state statutory provisions exempting conduct that complies with federal regulatory directives, and the First Amendment. Twenty-five cases are pending in Arkansas (2), Delaware (1), Florida (1), Georgia (1), Illinois (2), Kansas (1), Louisiana (1), Maine (1), Massachusetts (1), Minnesota (1), Missouri (1), New Hampshire (2), New Mexico (1), New Jersey (1), New York (1), Ohio (2), Oregon (1), Tennessee (1), Washington (1), and West Virginia (2). In addition, there are two cases pending in Israel. Other entities have stated that they are considering filing such actions against ALG, PMI, and PM USA.

 

To date, trial courts in Arizona and Oregon have refused to certify a class, an appellate court in Florida has overturned class certification by a trial court and the Supreme Court of Illinois has overturned a judgment in favor of a plaintiff class in the Price case, which is discussed below. Plaintiffs in the Florida case have petitioned the Florida Supreme Court for further review, and the Supreme Court has stayed further proceedings pending its decision in the Engle case discussed above.

 

Trial courts have certified classes against PM USA in Massachusetts ( Aspinall ), Ohio ( Marrone and Philipps ), Minnesota ( Curtis ) and Missouri ( Craft ). PM USA has appealed or otherwise challenged these class certification orders. Developments in these cases include:

 

    Aspinall:     In August 2004, the Massachusetts Judicial Supreme Court affirmed the class certification order.

 

    Marrone and Phillipps:     In September 2004, an appellate court affirmed the class certification orders, and PM USA sought review by the Ohio Supreme Court. In February 2005, the Ohio Supreme Court accepted the cases for review to determine whether a prior determination has been made by the State of Ohio that the conduct at issue is deceptive such that plaintiffs may pursue private claims.

 

    Curtis:     In April 2005, the Minnesota Supreme Court denied PM USA’s petition for interlocutory review of the trial court’s class certification order. In September 2005, PM USA removed Curtis to federal court based on the Eighth Circuit’s decision in Watson, which upheld the removal of a Lights case to federal court based on the federal officer jurisdiction of the Federal Trade Commission . In February 2006, the federal court denied plaintiff’s motion to remand the case to state court. Subject to any appellate review, the case will now proceed in federal court.

 

    Craft:     In August 2005, a Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed the class certification order. In September 2005, PM USA removed Craft to federal court based on the Eighth Circuit’s decision in Watson. Plaintiffs’ motion to remand the case to the state court is pending.

 

In addition to these cases, plaintiffs’ motion for certification of a nationwide class is pending in a case in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York ( Schwab ). In September 2005, the trial court hearing the Schwab case granted in part defendants’ motion for partial summary judgment dismissing plaintiffs’ claims for equitable relief, and denied a number of plaintiffs’ motions for summary judgment. In November 2005, the trial court hearing the Schwab case ruled that the plaintiffs would be permitted to calculate damages on an aggregate basis and use “fluid recovery” theories to allocate them among class members. Also, in December 2005, in the Miner case pending in the United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas, plaintiffs moved for certification of a class composed

 

-31-


Table of Contents

of individuals who purchased Marlboro Lights or Cambridge Lights brands in Arkansas, California, Colorado, and Michigan. In December, defendants filed a motion to stay plaintiffs’ motion for class certification until the court rules on PM USA’s pending motion to transfer venue to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas. This motion was granted in January 2006. PM USA’s motion for summary judgment based on preemption and the Arkansas statutory exemption is pending. Plaintiffs have moved to voluntarily dismiss Miner . In addition, plaintiffs’ motions for class certification are pending in the cases in Georgia, Kansas, New Jersey, New Mexico and Washington.

 

The Price Case

 

Trial in the Price case commenced in state court in Illinois in January 2003, and in March 2003, the judge found in favor of the plaintiff class and awarded approximately $7.1 billion in compensatory damages and $3 billion in punitive damages against PM USA. In April 2003, the judge reduced the amount of the appeal bond that PM USA must provide and ordered PM USA to place a pre-existing 7.0%, $6 billion long-term note from ALG to PM USA in an escrow account with an Illinois financial institution. (Since this note is the result of an intercompany financing arrangement, it does not appear on the consolidated balance sheets of Altria Group, Inc.) The judge’s order also required PM USA to make cash deposits with the clerk of the Madison County Circuit Court in the following amounts: beginning October 1, 2003, an amount equal to the interest earned by PM USA on the ALG note ($210 million every six months), an additional $800 million in four equal quarterly installments between September 2003 and June 2004 and the payments of principal on the note, which are due in April 2008, 2009 and 2010. Through February 15, 2006, PM USA paid $1.85 billion of the cash payments due under the judge’s order. (Cash payments into the account are included in other assets on Altria Group, Inc.’s consolidated balance sheets at December 31, 2005 and 2004.) Plaintiffs appealed the judge’s order reducing the bond. In July 2003, the Illinois Fifth District Court of Appeals ruled that the trial court had exceeded its authority in reducing the bond. In September 2003, the Illinois Supreme Court upheld the reduced bond set by the trial court and announced it would hear PM USA’s appeal on the merits without the need for intermediate appellate court review. In December 2005, the Illinois Supreme Court reversed the trial court’s judgment in favor of the plaintiffs and remanded the case to the trial court with instructions that the case be dismissed. In January 2006, plaintiffs filed a motion seeking a rehearing from the Illinois Supreme Court. If PM USA prevails on appeal, the escrowed note and all cash deposited with the court will be returned to PM USA, with accrued interest less administrative fees payable to the court.

 

Certain Other Tobacco-Related Litigation

 

Tobacco Price Cases :   As of February 15, 2006, two cases were pending in Kansas and New Mexico in which plaintiffs allege that defendants, including PM USA, conspired to fix cigarette prices in violation of antitrust laws. ALG and PMI are defendants in the case in Kansas. Plaintiffs’ motions for class certification have been granted in both cases. In February 2005, the New Mexico Court of Appeals affirmed the class certification decision. PM USA’s motion for summary judgment is pending in the New Mexico case.

 

Consolidated Putative Punitive Damages Cases :   In September 2000, a putative class action (Simon, et al. v. Philip Morris Incorporated, et al. (Simon II)) was filed in the federal district court in the Eastern District of New York that purported to consolidate punitive damages claims in ten tobacco-related actions then pending in federal district courts in New York and Pennsylvania. In September 2002, the court granted plaintiffs’ motion seeking certification of a punitive damages class of persons residing in the United States who smoke or smoked defendants’ cigarettes, and who have been diagnosed by a physician with an enumerated disease from April 1993 through the date notice of the certification of this class is disseminated. The following persons are excluded from the class: (1) those who have obtained

 

-32-


Table of Contents

judgments or settlements against any defendants; (2) those against whom any defendant has obtained judgment; (3) persons who are part of the Engle class; (4) persons who should have reasonably realized that they had an enumerated disease prior to April 9, 1993; and (5) those whose diagnosis or reasonable basis for knowledge predates their use of tobacco. Defendants petitioned the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit for review of the trial court’s ruling. In May 2005, the Second Circuit vacated the trial court’s class certification order and remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings. Plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration was denied, and the time for plaintiffs to petition the United States Supreme Court for further review has expired. In February 2006, the trial court issued an order of dismissal of the case but stayed the order for thirty days to allow other plaintiffs’ counsel the opportunity to take over the case.

 

Cases Under the California Business and Professions Code :   In June 1997 and July 1998, two suits ( Brown and Daniels ) , were filed in California state court alleging that domestic cigarette manufacturers, including PM USA and others, have violated California Business and Professions Code Sections 17200 and 17500 regarding unfair, unlawful and fraudulent business practices. Class certification was granted in both cases as to plaintiffs’ claims that class members are entitled to reimbursement of the costs of cigarettes purchased during the class periods and injunctive relief. In September 2002, the court granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment as to all claims in one of the cases, and plaintiffs appealed. In October 2004, the California Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s ruling, and also denied plaintiffs’ motion for rehearing. In February 2005, the California Supreme Court agreed to hear plaintiffs’ appeal. In September 2004, the trial court in the other case granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment as to plaintiffs’ claims attacking defendants’ cigarette advertising and promotion and denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment on plaintiffs’ claims based on allegedly false affirmative statements. Plaintiffs’ motion for rehearing was denied. In March 2005, the court granted defendants’ motion to decertify the class based on a recent change in California law. Plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration of the order that decertified the class was denied, and plaintiffs have appealed.

 

In May 2004, a lawsuit (Gurevitch) was filed in California state court on behalf of a purported class of all California residents who purchased the Merit brand of cigarettes since July 2000 to the present alleging that defendants, including PM USA, violated California’s Business and Professions Code Sections 17200 and 17500 regarding unfair, unlawful and fraudulent business practices, including false and misleading advertising. The complaint also alleges violations of California’s Consumer Legal Remedies Act. Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief, disgorgement, restitution, and attorneys’ fees. In July 2005, defendants’ motion to dismiss was granted; however, plaintiffs’ motion for leave to amend the complaint was also granted, and plaintiffs filed an amended complaint in September 2005. In October 2005, the court stayed this action pending the California Supreme Court’s rulings on two cases not involving PM USA, the resolution of which may impact the adjudication of this case.

 

Cigarette Contraband Cases :  In May 2000 and August 2001, various departments of Colombia and the European Community and 10 Member States filed suits in the United States against ALG and certain of its subsidiaries, including PM USA and PMI, and other cigarette manufacturers and their affiliates, alleging that defendants sold to distributors cigarettes that would be illegally imported into various jurisdictions. The claims asserted in these cases include negligence, negligent misrepresentation, fraud, unjust enrichment, violations of RICO and its state-law equivalents and conspiracy. Plaintiffs in these cases seek actual damages, treble damages and unspecified injunctive relief. In February 2002, the federal district court granted defendants’ motions to dismiss the actions. Plaintiffs in each case appealed. In January 2004, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the dismissals of the cases based on the common law Revenue Rule, which bars a foreign government from bringing civil claims in U.S. courts for the recovery of lost taxes. In April 2004, plaintiffs petitioned the United States Supreme Court for further review. In July 2004, the European Community and the 10 Member States entered into a cooperation agreement with PMI, the terms of

 

-33-


Table of Contents

which provide for broad cooperation between PMI and European law enforcement agencies on anti-contraband and anti-counterfeit efforts and resolve all disputes between the parties on these issues. Pursuant to this agreement, the European Community and the 10 Member States withdrew their suit as it relates to the ALG, PM USA and PMI defendants.

 

In May 2005, the United States Supreme Court, in a summary order, granted the plaintiffs’ petitions for review, vacated the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and remanded the cases to that court for further review in light of the Supreme Court’s April 2005 decision in U.S. v. Pasquantino. In Pasquantino , a criminal case brought by the United States government, the Supreme Court upheld the convictions of the defendants in that case for violating the U.S. wire fraud statute based on a scheme to smuggle alcohol into Canada without paying Canadian taxes, while expressing no opinion as to the question of whether the Revenue Rule barred a foreign government from bringing a civil action in U.S. courts for a scheme to defraud it of taxes, as the Second Circuit had earlier held in distinguishing those civil claims from a U.S. criminal prosecution as in Pasquantino . In September 2005, the Second Circuit reinstated its original decision affirming the dismissal of the cases based on the common law Revenue Rule, concluding that the Pasquantino decision cast no doubt on the reasoning and result of the original January 2004 decision. The Second Circuit acknowledged that the claims of the European Community and 10 Member States against ALG, PM USA, and PMI had previously been dismissed. In October 2005, the plaintiffs in the two cases petitioned the United States Supreme Court for further review. In January 2006, the Supreme Court denied plaintiffs’ petition for review. It is possible that future litigation related to cigarette contraband issues may be brought.

 

Vending Machine Case :   In February 1999, plaintiffs filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court in Tennessee as a purported nationwide class of cigarette vending machine operators, and alleged that PM USA violated the Robinson-Patman Act in connection with its promotional and merchandising programs available to retail stores and not available to cigarette vending machine operators. The initial complaint was amended to bring the total number of plaintiffs to 211 but, by stipulated orders, all claims were stayed, except those of ten plaintiffs that proceeded to pre-trial discovery. Plaintiffs requested actual damages, treble damages, injunctive relief, attorneys’ fees and costs, and other unspecified relief. In August 2001, the trial court granted PM USA’s motion for summary judgment and dismissed, with prejudice, the claims of the ten plaintiffs. In October 2001, the court certified its decision for appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit following the stipulation of all plaintiffs that the district court’s dismissal would, if affirmed, be binding on all plaintiffs. In January 2004, the Sixth Circuit reversed the lower court’s grant of summary judgment with respect to plaintiffs’ claim that PM USA violated Robinson-Patman Act provisions regarding promotional services and with respect to the discriminatory pricing claim of plaintiffs who bought cigarettes directly from PM USA. The claims of eight plaintiffs were tried in July 2005 (one plaintiff was granted a continuance and another voluntarily dismissed its claims with prejudice). The jury returned a verdict in favor of PM USA on the Robinson-Patman Act claims and awarded PM USA approximately $110,000 on counterclaims PM USA made against three plaintiffs. Following completion of the trial, the district court lifted the stay on the remaining claims and directed the magistrate judge to establish a schedule for the disposition of those claims. In October 2005, on agreement of the parties, all claims in this matter were dismissed with prejudice.

 

Asbestos Contribution Cases :   These cases, which have been brought on behalf of former asbestos manufacturers and affiliated entities against PM USA and other cigarette manufacturers, seek, among other things, contribution or reimbursement for amounts expended in connection with the defense and payment of asbestos claims that were allegedly caused in whole or in part by cigarette smoking. Currently, one case is pending in California.

 

-34-


Table of Contents

Certain Other Actions

 

Italian Antitrust Case :   During 2001, the competition authority in Italy initiated an investigation into the pricing activities of participants in that cigarette market. In March 2003, the authority issued its findings and imposed fines totaling 50 million euro on certain affiliates of PMI. PMI’s affiliates appealed to the administrative court, which rejected the appeal in July 2003. PMI believes that its affiliates have numerous grounds for appeal, and in February 2004, its affiliates appealed to the supreme administrative court. The appeal was heard on November 8, 2005. However, under Italian law, if fines are not paid within certain specified time periods, interest and eventually penalties will be applied to the fines. Accordingly, in December 2003, pending final resolution of the case, PMI’s affiliates paid 51 million euro representing the fines and any applicable interest to the date of payment. The 51 million euro will be returned to PMI’s affiliates if they prevail on appeal. Accordingly, the payment has been included in other assets on Altria Group, Inc.’s consolidated balance sheets.

 

IRS Challenges to PMCC Leases :   The IRS is examining the consolidated tax returns for Altria Group, Inc., which includes PMCC, for years 1996 through 1999. Recently, the IRS has proposed to disallow certain transactions, and may in the future challenge and disallow several more of PMCC’s leveraged leases based on recent Revenue Rulings and a recent IRS Notice addressing specific types of leveraged leases (lease-in/lease-out transactions, qualified technological equipment transactions, and sale-in/lease-out transactions). PMCC believes that the position and supporting case law described in the Revenue Rulings and the IRS Notice as well as those asserted in the proposed adjustments are incorrectly applied to PMCC’s transactions and that its leveraged leases are factually and legally distinguishable in material respects from the IRS’s position. PMCC and ALG intend to vigorously defend against any challenges based on that position through administrative appeals and litigation, if necessary, and ALG believes that, given the strength of PMCC’s position, it should ultimately prevail. However, should PMCC’s position not be upheld, PMCC may have to accelerate the payment of significant amounts of federal income tax and lower its earnings to reflect the recalculation of the income from the affected leveraged leases.

 


 

It is not possible to predict the outcome of the litigation pending against ALG and its subsidiaries. Litigation is subject to many uncertainties. As discussed above under “Recent Trial Results,” unfavorable verdicts awarding substantial damages against PM USA have been returned in 16 cases since 1999. Of the 16 cases in which verdicts were returned in favor of plaintiffs, four have reached final resolution. A verdict against defendants in a health care cost recovery case has been reversed and all claims were dismissed with prejudice, and after exhausting all appeals, PM USA paid $3.3 million (including interest of $285,000) in an individual smoking and health case in Florida, $17 million (including interest of $6.4 million) in an individual smoking and health case in California and $328,759 (including interest of $78,259) in a flight attendant ETS case in Florida. The remaining 12 cases are in various post-trial stages. It is possible that there could be further adverse developments in these cases and that additional cases could be decided unfavorably. In the event of an adverse trial result in certain pending litigation, the defendant may not be able to obtain a required bond or obtain relief from bonding requirements in order to prevent a plaintiff from seeking to collect a judgment while an adverse verdict is being appealed. An unfavorable outcome or settlement of pending tobacco-related litigation could encourage the commencement of additional litigation. There have also been a number of adverse legislative, regulatory, political and other developments concerning cigarette smoking and the tobacco industry that have received widespread media attention. These developments may negatively affect the perception of judges and jurors with respect to the tobacco industry, possibly to the detriment of certain pending litigation, and may prompt the commencement of additional similar litigation.

 

ALG and its subsidiaries record provisions in the consolidated financial statements for pending litigation when they determine that an unfavorable outcome is probable and the amount of the loss can

 

-35-


Table of Contents

be reasonably estimated. Except as discussed elsewhere in this Item 3. Legal Proceedings : (i) management has not concluded that it is probable that a loss has been incurred in any of the pending tobacco-related litigation; (ii) management is unable to make a meaningful estimate of the amount or range of loss that could result from an unfavorable outcome of pending tobacco-related litigation; and (iii) accordingly, management has not provided any amounts in the consolidated financial statements for unfavorable outcomes, if any.

 

The present legislative and litigation environment is substantially uncertain, and it is possible that the business and volume of ALG’s subsidiaries, as well as Altria Group, Inc.’s consolidated results of operations, cash flows or financial position could be materially affected by an unfavorable outcome or settlement of certain pending litigation or by the enactment of federal or state tobacco legislation. ALG and each of its subsidiaries named as a defendant believe, and each has been so advised by counsel handling the respective cases, that it has a number of valid defenses to the litigation pending against it, as well as valid bases for appeal of adverse verdicts against it. All such cases are, and will continue to be, vigorously defended. However, ALG and its subsidiaries may enter into settlement discussions in particular cases if they believe it is in the best interests of ALG’s stockholders to do so.

 

Reference is made to Note 19 for a description of certain pending legal proceedings. Reference is also made to Exhibit 99.1 to this Form 10-K for a list of pending smoking and health class actions, health care cost recovery actions, and certain other actions, and for a description of certain developments in such proceedings, and to Exhibit 99.2 for a schedule of the smoking and health class action, health care cost recovery actions, and individual smoking and health cases which are currently scheduled for trial through the end of 2006. Copies of Note 19 and Exhibits 99.1 and 99.2 are available upon written request to the Corporate Secretary, Altria Group, Inc., 120 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10017.

 

Item 4. Submission of Matters to a Vote of Security Holders.

 

None.

 

-36-


Table of Contents

PART II

 

Item 5 . Market for Registrant’s Common Equity, Related Stockholder Matters and Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities.

 

ALG’s share repurchase activity for each of the three months ended December 31, 2005, were as follows:

 

Period


  

Total
Number of
Shares
Repurchased

(1)


   Average
Price Paid
per Share


   Total Number
of Shares
Purchased as
Part of Publicly
Announced
Plans or
Programs


   Approximate
Dollar Value
of Shares that
May Yet be
Purchased
Under the Plans
or Programs


October 1, 2005 –

October 31, 2005

   -    $ -    -    -

November 1, 2005 –

November 30, 2005

   228,076    $ 73.40    -    -

December 1, 2005 –

December 31, 2005

   295,334    $ 75.45    -    -
    
                
For the Quarter Ended December 31, 2005    523,410    $ 74.55          
    
                

 

(1) The shares repurchased during the periods presented above represent shares tendered to ALG by employees who exercised stock options and used previously owned shares to pay all, or a portion of, the option exercise price and related taxes.

 

The other information called for by this Item is hereby incorporated by reference to the paragraph captioned “Quarterly Financial Data (Unaudited)” on pages 78 to 79 of the 2005 Annual Report and made a part hereof.

 

Ite m 6. Selected Financial Data.

 

The information called for by this Item is hereby incorporated by reference to the information with respect to 2001-2005 appearing under the caption “Selected Financial Data” on page 41 of the 2005 Annual Report and made a part hereof.

 

Item 7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operation.

 

The information called for by this Item is hereby incorporated by reference to the paragraphs captioned “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” (“MD&A”) on pages 17 to 40 of the 2005 Annual Report and made a part hereof.

 

Item 7A. Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk.

 

The information called for by this Item is hereby incorporated by reference to the paragraphs in the MD&A captioned “Market Risk” and “Value at Risk” on pages 37 to 38 of the 2005 Annual Report and made a part hereof.

 

-37-


Table of Contents

Item 8. Financial Statements and Supplementary Data.

 

The information called for by this Item is hereby incorporated by reference to the 2005 Annual Report as set forth under the caption “Quarterly Financial Data (Unaudited)” on pages 78 to 79 and in the Index to Consolidated Financial Statements and Schedules (see Item 15) and made a part hereof.

 

Item 9. Changes in and Disagreements with Accountants on Accounting and Financial Disclosure.

 

None.

 

Item 9A. Controls and Procedures.

 

Altria Group, Inc. carried out an evaluation, with the participation of Altria Group, Inc.’s management, including ALG’s Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, of the effectiveness of Altria Group, Inc.’s disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Rule 13a-15(e) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended) as of the end of the period covered by this report. Based upon that evaluation, ALG’s Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer concluded that Altria Group, Inc.’s disclosure controls and procedures are effective.

 

See Exhibit 13 for the Report of Management on Internal Control over Financial Reporting and the Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm containing an attestation thereto.

 

Item 9B. Other Information.

 

None.

 

PART III

 

Item 10. Directors and Executive Officers of the Registrant.

 

Executive Officers as of March 7, 2006:

 

Name


  Office

  Age

André Calantzopoulos

  President and Chief Executive Officer of Philip Morris International Inc.   49

Louis C. Camilleri

  Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer   51

Nancy J. De Lisi

  Senior Vice President, Mergers and Acquisitions   55

Roger K. Deromedi

  Chief Executive Officer of Kraft Foods Inc.   52

Dinyar S. Devitre

  Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer   58

Amy J. Engel

  Vice President and Treasurer   49

David I. Greenberg

  Senior Vice President and Chief Compliance Officer   51

G. Penn Holsenbeck

  Vice President, Associate General Counsel and Corporate Secretary   59

Steven C. Parrish

  Senior Vice President, Corporate Affairs   55

Walter V. Smith

  Vice President, Taxes   62

Michael E. Szymanczyk

  Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Philip Morris USA Inc.   57

Joseph A. Tiesi

  Vice President and Controller   47

Charles R. Wall

  Senior Vice President and General Counsel   60

 

With the exception of Dinyar S. Devitre, all of the above-mentioned officers have been employed by Altria Group, Inc. in various capacities during the past five years. Dinyar S. Devitre was appointed Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer effective April 25, 2002. From April 2001 to March 2002, he was a private business consultant. From January 1998 to March 2001, Mr. Devitre was Executive Vice President at Citigroup Inc. in Europe. Prior to 1998, Mr. Devitre had been employed by ALG or its subsidiaries in various capacities since 1970.

 

-38-


Table of Contents

For information regarding directors who will be nominated for election at the Annual Meeting of Stockholders, see Item 11. In addition, Carlos Slim Helú (age 66), who is currently serving on our Board of Directors, will not be standing for re-election to the Board of Directors in 2006.

 

Codes of Conduct and Corporate Governance

 

ALG has adopted the Altria Code of Conduct for Compliance and Integrity, which complies with requirements set forth in Item 406 of Regulation S-K, and this Code of Conduct applies to all of its employees, including its principal executive officer, principal financial officer, principal accounting officer or controller, and persons performing similar functions. ALG has also adopted a code of business conduct and ethics that applies to the members of its Board of Directors. These documents are available free of charge on ALG’s website at www.altria.com and will be provided free of charge to any stockholder requesting a copy by writing to: Corporate Secretary, Altria Group, Inc., 120 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10017.

 

In addition, ALG has adopted corporate governance guidelines and charters for its Audit, Compensation and Nominating and Corporate Governance Committees and the other committees of the board of directors. All of these documents are available free of charge on ALG’s web site at www.altria.com, are included in ALG’s definitive proxy statement, and will be provided free of charge to any stockholder requesting a copy by writing to: Corporate Secretary, Altria Group, Inc., 120 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10017. Any waiver granted by the Company to its principal executive officer, principal financial officer or controller under the code of ethics, or certain amendments to the code of ethics, will be disclosed on the Company’s website at www.altria.com.

 

On May 24, 2005, the Company filed its Annual CEO Certification as required by Section 303A.12 of the New York Stock Exchange Listed Company Manual.

 

The information on ALG’s website is not, and shall not be deemed to be, a part of this Report or incorporated into any other filings made with the SEC.

 

Item 11. Executive Compensation.

 

Except for the information relating to the executive officers set forth above in Item 10 and the information relating to equity compensation plans set forth in Item 12, the information called for by Items 10-14 is hereby incorporated by reference to ALG’s definitive proxy statement for use in connection with its annual meeting of stockholders to be held on April 27, 2006 that will be filed with the SEC on or about March 13, 2006, and, except as indicated therein, made a part hereof.

 

 

-39-


Table of Contents
Item 12. Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and Management and Related Stockholder Matters.

 

The number of shares to be issued upon exercise or vesting and the number of shares remaining available for future issuance under ALG’s equity compensation plans at December 31, 2005, were as follows:

 

    

Number of
Shares
to be Issued upon
Exercise of
Outstanding
Options and
Vesting of
Restricted

Stock


   Weighted
Average
Exercise
Price of
Outstanding
Options


   Number of Shares
Remaining
Available for
Future Issuance
Under Equity
Compensation
Plans


Equity compensation plans approved
by stockholders

   54,768,576    $ 41.82    49,525,499
    
  

  

 

See Item 11.

 

Item 13. Certain Relationships and Related Transactions.

 

See Item 11.

 

Item 14. Principal Accounting Fees and Services.

 

See Item 11.

 

PART IV

 

Item 15. Exhibits and Financial Statement Schedules .

 

(a) Index to Consolidated Financial Statements and Schedules

 

     Reference

     Form 10-K
Annual
Report
Page


   2005
Annual
Report
Page


Data incorporated by reference to Altria Group, Inc.’s 2005 Annual Report:

         

Consolidated Balance Sheets at December 31, 2005 and 2004

   -    42-43

Consolidated Statements of Earnings for the years ended December 31, 2005, 2004 and 2003

   -    44

Consolidated Statements of Stockholders’ Equity for the years ended December 31, 2005, 2004 and 2003

   -    45

Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows for the years ended December 31, 2005, 2004 and 2003

   -    46-47

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

   -    48-79

Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

   -    80

Report of Management on Internal Control Over Financial Reporting

        81

Data submitted herewith:

         

Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm on Financial Statement Schedule

   S-1    -

Financial Statement Schedule – Valuation and Qualifying Accounts

   S-2    -

 

-40-


Table of Contents

Schedules other than those listed above have been omitted either because such schedules are not required or are not applicable.

 

(b) The following exhibits are filed as part of this Report:

 

  3.1         Articles of Amendment to the Restated Articles of Incorporation of ALG and Restated Articles of Incorporation of ALG.(22)
  3.2         By-Laws, as amended, of ALG.(23)
  4.1         Indenture dated as of August 1, 1990, between ALG and JPMorgan Chase Bank, Trustee.(1)
  4.2         First Supplemental Indenture dated as of February 1, 1991, to Indenture dated as of August 1, 1990, between ALG and JPMorgan Chase Bank (formerly known as Chemical Bank), Trustee.(2)
  4.3         Second Supplemental Indenture dated as of January 21, 1992, to Indenture dated as of August 1, 1990, between ALG and JPMorgan Chase Bank (formerly known as Chemical Bank), Trustee.(3)
  4.4         Indenture dated as of December 2, 1996, between ALG and JPMorgan Chase Bank, Trustee.(4)
  4.5         Indenture dated as of October 17, 2001, between Kraft Foods Inc. and JPMorgan Chase Bank, Trustee.(19)
4.6         5-Year Revolving Credit Agreement dated as of April 15, 2005 among Altria Group, Inc. and the Initial Lenders named therein and JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. and Citibank, N.A. as Administrative Agents, Credit Suisse First Boston, Cayman Islands Branch and Deutsche Bank Securities Inc. as Syndication Agents and ABN AMRO Bank N.V., BNP Paribas, HSBC Bank USA, National Association and UBS Securities LLC as Arrangers and Documentation Agents.(30)
4.7         The Registrant agrees to furnish copies of any instruments defining the rights of holders of long-term debt of the Registrant and its consolidated subsidiaries that does not exceed 10 percent of the total assets of the Registrant and its consolidated subsidiaries to the Commission upon request.
10.1         Financial Counseling Program.(5)
10.2         Benefit Equalization Plan, as amended.(6)
10.3         Form of Employee Grantor Trust Enrollment Agreement.(7)
10.4         Form of Supplemental Employee Grantor Trust Enrollment Agreement.
10.5         Automobile Policy.(5)
10.6         Form of Employment Agreement between ALG and its executive officers.(8)
10.7         Supplemental Management Employees’ Retirement Plan of ALG, as amended.(5)
10.8         1992 Incentive Compensation and Stock Option Plan.(5)
10.9         Unit Plan for Incumbent Non-Employee Directors, effective January 1, 1996.(7)
10.10       Form of Executive Master Trust between ALG, JPMorgan Chase Bank and Handy Associates.(8)
10.11       1997 Performance Incentive Plan.(10)
10.12       Long-Term Disability Benefit Equalization Plan, as amended.(5)
10.13       Survivor Income Benefit Equalization Plan, as amended.(5)
10.14       2000 Performance Incentive Plan.(17)

 

-41-


Table of Contents
10.15       2000 Stock Compensation Plan for Non-Employee Directors, as amended.(22)
10.16       2005 Performance Incentive Plan.(28)
10.17       2005 Stock Compensation Plan for Non-Employee Directors.(28)
10.18       Comprehensive Settlement Agreement and Release dated October 17, 1997, related to settlement of Mississippi health care cost recovery action.(5)
10.19       Settlement Agreement dated August 25, 1997, related to settlement of Florida health care cost recovery action.(11)
10.20       Comprehensive Settlement Agreement and Release dated January 16, 1998, related to settlement of Texas health care cost recovery action.(12)
10.21       Settlement Agreement and Stipulation for Entry of Judgment, dated May 8, 1998, regarding the claims of the State of Minnesota.(13)
10.22       Settlement Agreement and Release, dated May 8, 1998, regarding the claims of Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Minnesota.(13)
10.23       Stipulation of Amendment to Settlement Agreement and For Entry of Agreed Order, dated July 2, 1998, regarding the settlement of the Mississippi health care cost recovery action.(14)
10.24       Stipulation of Amendment to Settlement Agreement and For Entry of Consent Decree, dated July 24, 1998, regarding the settlement of the Texas health care cost recovery action.(14)
10.25       Stipulation of Amendment to Settlement Agreement and For Entry of Consent Decree, dated September 11, 1998, regarding the settlement of the Florida health care cost recovery action.(15)
10.26       Master Settlement Agreement relating to state health care cost recovery and other claims.(16)
10.27       Stipulation and Agreed Order Regarding Stay of Execution Pending Review and Related Matters.(18)
10.28       Agreement among ALG, PM USA and Michael E. Szymanczyk.(20)
10.29       Description of Agreement with Roger K. Deromedi.(24)
10.30       Anti-Contraband and Anti-Counterfeit Agreement and General Release dated July 9, 2004 and Appendixes.(25)
10.31       Form of Restricted Stock Agreement.(26)
10.32       Description of Agreement with Louis C. Camilleri.(27)
10.33       Agreement for the Sale and Purchase of 1,377,525,000 shares in PT HM Sampoerna Tbk dated March 12, 2005, between Dubuis Holding Limited and PT Philip Morris Indonesia (PT Philip Morris Indonesia entered into agreements with a number of other principal shareholders on terms substantially identical in all material respects).(27)
10.34       364-Day Revolving Credit Agreement dated as of April 15, 2005 among Altria Group, Inc. and the Initial Lenders named therein and JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. and Citibank, N.A. as Administrative Agents, Credit Suisse First Boston, Cayman Islands Branch and Deutsche Bank Securities Inc. as Syndication Agents and ABN AMRO Bank N.V., BNP Paribas, HSBC Bank USA, National Association and UBS Securities LLC as Arrangers and Documentation Agents.(30)

 

-42-


Table of Contents
10.35       Credit Agreement relating to a EUR 2,000,000,000 5-Year Revolving Credit Facility (including a EUR 1,000,000,000 swingline option) and a EUR 2,500,000,000 3-Year Term Loan Facility dated as of 12 May 2005 among Philip Morris International Inc. and the Initial Lenders named therein and Citibank International plc as Facility Agent and Swingline Agent, Citigroup Global Markets Limited, Credit Suisse First Boston, Cayman Islands Branch, Deutsche Bank Securities Inc. and J.P. Morgan plc as Mandated Lead Arrangers and Bookrunners and ABN AMRO Bank N.V., HSBC Bank plc and Société Genéralé as Mandated Lead Arrangers.(29)
10.36       Form of Deferred Stock Agreement.
12       Statements re: computation of ratios.
13       Pages 16 to 81 of the 2005 Annual Report, but only to the extent set forth in Items 1, 3, 5-8, 9A, and 15 hereof. With the exception of the aforementioned information incorporated by reference in this Annual Report on Form 10-K, the 2005 Annual Report is not to be deemed “filed” as part of this Report.
21       Subsidiaries of ALG.
23       Consent of independent registered public accounting firm.
24       Powers of attorney.
31.1       Certification of the Registrant’s Chief Executive Officer pursuant to Rule 13a-14(a)/15d-14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, as adopted pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.
31.2       Certification of the Registrant’s Chief Financial Officer pursuant to Rule 13a-14(a)/15d-14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, as adopted pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.
32.1       Certification of the Registrant’s Chief Executive Officer pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.
32.2       Certification of the Registrant’s Chief Financial Officer pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.
99.1       Certain Pending Litigation Matters and Recent Developments.
99.2       Trial Schedule.

(1) Incorporated by reference to ALG’s Registration Statement on Form S-3 (No. 33-36450) dated August 22, 1990 (File No. 1-08940).

 

(2) Incorporated by reference to ALG’s Registration Statement on Form S-3 (No. 33-39059) dated February 21, 1991 (File No. 1-08940).

 

(3) Incorporated by reference to ALG’s Registration Statement on Form S-3 (No. 33-45210) dated January 22, 1992 (File No. 1-08940).

 

(4) Incorporated by reference to ALG’s Registration Statement on Form S-3/A (No. 333-35143) dated January 29, 1998 (File No. 1-08940).

 

(5) Incorporated by reference to ALG’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 1997 (File No. 1-08940).

 

(6) Incorporated by reference to ALG’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 1996 (File No. 1-08940).

 

(7) Incorporated by reference to ALG’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 1995 (File No. 1-08940).

 

(8) Incorporated by reference to ALG’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 1994 (File No. 1-08940).

 

-43-


Table of Contents
(9) Incorporated by reference to ALG’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 1997 (File No. 1-08940).

 

(10) Incorporated by reference to ALG’s proxy statement dated March 10, 1997 (File No. 1-08940).

 

(11) Incorporated by reference to ALG’s Current Report on Form 8-K dated September 3, 1997 (File No. 1-08940).

 

(12) Incorporated by reference to ALG’s Current Report on Form 8-K dated January 28, 1998 (File No. 1-08940).

 

(13) Incorporated by reference to ALG’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 1998 (File No. 1-08940).

 

(14) Incorporated by reference to ALG’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 1998 (File No. 1-08940).

 

(15) Incorporated by reference to ALG’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 1998 (File No. 1-08940).

 

(16) Incorporated by reference to ALG’s Current Report on Form 8-K dated November 25, 1998, as amended by Form 8-K/A dated December 24, 1998 (File No. 1-08940).

 

(17) Incorporated by reference to ALG’s proxy statement dated March 10, 2000 (File No. 1-08940).

 

(18) Incorporated by reference to ALG’s Current Report on Form 8-K dated May 8, 2001.

 

(19) Incorporated by reference to Kraft Foods Inc.’s Registration Statement on Form S-3 (No. 333-67770) dated August 16, 2001.

 

(20) Incorporated by reference to ALG’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2002.

 

(21) Incorporated by reference to ALG’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2003.

 

(22) Incorporated by reference to ALG’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2002.

 

(23) Incorporated by reference to ALG’s Current Report on Form 8-K dated December 17, 2004.

 

(24) Incorporated by reference to ALG’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2003.

 

(25) Incorporated by reference to ALG’s Current Report on Form 8-K dated July 9, 2004 (portions of which have been omitted pursuant to a request for confidential treatment filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission).

 

(26) Incorporated by reference to ALG’s Current Report on Form 8-K dated January 28, 2005.

 

(27) Incorporated by reference to ALG’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2004 (File No. 1-08940).

 

(28) Incorporated by reference to ALG’s proxy statement dated March 14, 2005 (File No. 1-08940).

 

(29) Incorporated by reference to ALG’s Current Report on Form 8-K dated May 18, 2005.

 

(30) Incorporated by reference to ALG’s Current Report on Form 8-K dated April 20, 2005.

 

-44-


Table of Contents

SIGNATURES

 

Pursuant to the requirements of Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned, thereunto duly authorized.

 

Altria Group, Inc.

By:   /s/    L OUIS C. C AMILLERI        
   

(Louis C. Camilleri
Chairman of the Board and
Chief Executive Officer)

 

Date: March 10, 2006

 

Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, this report has been signed below by the following persons on behalf of the registrant and in the capacities and on the date indicated:

 

Signature


  

Title


  

Date


/s/    L OUIS C. C AMILLERI        


(Louis C. Camilleri)

  

Director, Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer

   March 10, 2006

/s/    D INYAR S. D EVITRE        


(Dinyar S. Devitre)

  

Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer

   March 10, 2006

/s/    J OSEPH A. T IES i        


(Joseph A. Tiesi)

  

Vice President and Controller

   March 10, 2006

*ELIZABETH E. BAILEY,

 HAROLD BROWN,

 MATHIS CABIALLAVETTA,

 J. DUDLEY FISHBURN,

 ROBERT E. R. HUNTLEY,

 THOMAS W. JONES,

 GEORGE MUÑOZ,

 LUCIO A. NOTO,

 JOHN S. REED,

 STEPHEN M. WOLF

  

Directors

    

*By:

 

/s/    L OUIS C. C AMILLERI        


(Louis C. Camilleri

Attorney-in-fact)

        March 10, 2006

 

-45-


Table of Contents

REPORT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

ON FINANCIAL STATEMENT SCHEDULE

 

To the Board of Directors and Stockholders of

ALTRIA GROUP, INC.:

 

Our audits of the consolidated financial statements, of management’s assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting and of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting referred to in our report dated February 7, 2006 appearing in the 2005 Annual Report to Shareholders of Altria Group, Inc. (which report, consolidated financial statements and assessment are incorporated by reference in this Annual Report on Form 10-K) also included an audit of the financial statement schedule listed in Item 15(a) of this Form 10-K. In our opinion, this financial statement schedule presents fairly, in all material respects, the information set forth therein when read in conjunction with the related consolidated financial statements.

 

/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

 

New York, New York

February 7, 2006

 

S-1


Table of Contents

ALTRIA GROUP, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

 

VALUATION AND QUALIFYING ACCOUNTS

For the Years Ended December 31, 2005, 2004 and 2003

(in millions)

 

Col. A


   Col. B

   Col. C

    Col. D

   Col. E

          Additions

          

Description


   Balance
at
Beginning
of Period


   Charged to
Costs and
Expenses


    Charged to
Other
Accounts


    Deductions

   Balance
at
End of
Period


                (a)     (b)     

2005:

                                    

CONSUMER PRODUCTS:

                                    

Allowance for discounts

   $ 12    $ 559     $ 1     $ 560    $ 12

Allowance for doubtful accounts

     155      14       (15 )     27      127

Allowance for returned goods

     14      (6 )     -       6      2
    

  


 


 

  

     $ 181    $ 567     $ (14 )   $ 593    $ 141
    

  


 


 

  

FINANCIAL SERVICES:

                                    

Allowance for losses

   $ 497    $ 200     $ -     $ 101    $ 596
    

  


 


 

  

2004:

                                    

CONSUMER PRODUCTS:

                                    

Allowance for discounts

   $ 14    $ 563     $ -     $ 565    $ 12

Allowance for doubtful accounts

     150      29       8       32      155

Allowance for returned goods

     21      14       -       21      14
    

  


 


 

  

     $ 185    $ 606     $ 8     $ 618    $ 181
    

  


 


 

  

FINANCIAL SERVICES:

                                    

Allowance for losses

   $ 396    $ 140     $ -     $ 39    $ 497
    

  


 


 

  

2003:

                                    

CONSUMER PRODUCTS:

                                    

Allowance for discounts

   $ 12    $ 802     $ -     $ 800    $ 14

Allowance for doubtful accounts

     156      17       -       23      150

Allowance for returned goods

     16      176       -       171      21
    

  


 


 

  

     $ 184    $ 995     $ -     $ 994    $ 185
    

  


 


 

  

FINANCIAL SERVICES:

                                    

Allowance for losses

   $ 444    $ -     $ -     $ 48    $ 396
    

  


 


 

  


Notes:

 

(a) Primarily related to divestitures, acquisitions and currency translation.

 

(b) Represents charges for which allowances were created.

 

S-2

Exhibit 10.4

 

FORM OF SUPPLEMENTAL EMPLOYEE GRANTOR TRUST ENROLLMENT AGREEMENT

 

This agreement (“Agreement”) is made the              day of                      , 2005, between                                                               (the “Employee”), the person, if any, to whom the Employee is legally married (the “Employee’s Spouse”), Altria Corporate Services, Inc. (“ALCS”) and those affiliates of ALCS set forth on Exhibit B (the “Company”) by whom the Employee is or has been employed.

 

Introduction

 

The Company has established and maintained the Benefit Equalization Plan and the Supplemental Management Employees’ Retirement Plan (the “Supplemental Plans” or the “Plans”).

 

Previously the Employee, the Employee’s Spouse and the Company entered into one or more Employee Grantor Trust Enrollment Agreements (the most recent of which, including any amendments thereto, is hereinafter referred to as the “Original Enrollment Agreement”) providing for payments to or on behalf of the Employee by the relevant participating employer or employers in discharge of their respective obligations under the Supplemental Plans, such payments to be made to an Employee Grantor Trust established by the Employee (the “Trust”). The parties wish to acknowledge that the Original Enrollment Agreement will apply to those accrued benefits under the Supplemental Plans attributable to service rendered before January 1, 2005, to provide in this Agreement for the payment of additional current compensation to the Employee for services rendered in each year after 2004 in the amount specified below in consideration for the Employee’s agreement to waive participation in the Supplemental Plans with respect to service attributable to periods after December 31, 2004, and to provide for the payment of such additional compensation into the Employee Grantor Trust established by the Employee pursuant to the Original Enrollment Agreement in accordance with the terms specified below.

 

In consideration of their mutual undertakings, the Company, the Employee, and the Employee’s Spouse agree as follows:

 

I. Waiver of Right to Accrue Further Benefits in Supplemental Plans and Continued

Maintenance of Grantor Trust

 

1.1 In consideration of the Company’s agreement to make the Target Payments as provided for in Article II, the Employee hereby waives the right to accrue any benefits under the Supplemental Plans with respect to service performed after December 31, 2004 and agrees to cease active participation in the Supplemental Plans effective as of that date.

 

1.2 The Employee agrees to continue to maintain the Trust for the purpose of

 

-1-


Exhibit 10.4

 

receiving and holding (a) the cash deposits made pursuant to the Original Enrollment Agreement and (b) any additional cash deposits made pursuant to Article II of this Agreement. The cash deposits made pursuant to the Original Enrollment Agreement, including any Funding Payments made under that Agreement with respect to service performed by the Employee for periods before January 1, 2005 and earnings on those deposits, shall offset the benefits accrued by the Employee under the Supplemental Plans as of December 31, 2004, as provided in the Original Enrollment Agreement. Such Funding Payments, and any earnings thereon, shall be maintained by the Trustee in a separate subaccount in the Trust (hereinafter referred to as “Subaccount FP-A”). This Agreement shall govern the terms of any current compensation payments deposited by the Company on behalf of the Employee in the Trust pursuant to Article II below, which compensation payments and earnings thereon shall be maintained by the Trustee in a separate subaccount (hereinafter referred to as “Subaccount TP”).

 

1.3 The Employee and the Employee’s Spouse, if any, agree that they will not directly contribute any additional funds to Subaccount TP. The Employee and the Employee’s Spouse also understand that assets held in Subaccount TP will be available for distribution or withdrawal only (a) after the Employee’s retirement, death or other termination of employment with the Company (for this purpose treating Kraft Foods, Inc. or one of its subsidiaries (“Kraft”) as part of the Company so long as Kraft is then a member of a controlled group of corporations including the Company), which may include termination by reason of long-term disability, (b) in certain circumstances in which there has been a transfer of the Employee’s employment with the Company or Kraft to a foreign jurisdiction resulting in a termination of the Trust, (c) in other limited circumstances permitted under the Employee Grantor Trust Agreement, and (d) to the extent that Trust withdrawals are necessary to pay taxes on Trust earnings as provided in Section 3.1.

 

1.4 The Employee and the Employee’s Spouse, if any, understand that, under the terms of the Employee Grantor Trust Agreement, the Trustee intends to exercise its investment discretion in a manner consistent with the purpose of the Trust specified in Section I.(3) of the Trust Agreement and acknowledge that they have been informed that the Trustee currently intends to invest the Trust assets in one or more of the Fidelity Freedom Funds in the manner set forth in Item 3 of Schedule A of the Employee Grantor Trust Agreement, but that the Trustee retains discretion to change the assets in which the Trust will be invested.

 

1.5 The Employee (or in the event of the Employee’s death, the Employee’s Beneficiary(ies) as designated by the Employee in the manner specified by the Administrator) may exercise the rights of withdrawal provided for in Section 1.3 above by directing the Trustee in writing to liquidate the Trust assets and distribute the proceeds to the Employee or Beneficiary(ies) as the case may be. In the absence of such written direction, the assets in Subaccount TP shall be distributed to the Employee or his or her Beneficiary(ies), as relevant, following the Employee’s termination of employment in kind to the extent feasible and otherwise in cash, except to the extent any new trust agreement entered into between the Employee (or the Employee’s Beneficiary(ies)) and Fidelity Management Trust Company as contemplated by Section I.(7) of the Grantor Trust Agreement otherwise provides.

 

1.6 Under no circumstances whatever shall the Company, any other employer, or the

 

-2-


Exhibit 10.4

 

Administrator have any interest in, or be entitled to receive, any of the Trust assets.

 

II. Payments to Trust and Maintenance of Assumed Trust Balances

 

2.1 Subject to its right provided in Section 2.5 to discontinue making payments described in Section 2.2, for each year that the Employee is employed by the Company or by Kraft (if Kraft is then a member of a controlled group of corporations including the Company), the Company agrees to make a payment of additional cash compensation to the Employee for that year in the form of a payment to the Trust established by the Employee of an amount determined in accordance with the provisions of Section 2.2 (the “Target Payment”). The Employee directs the Company and its agents (a) to deduct federal, state, and local taxes, using the tax-rate assumptions set forth on Exhibit A (except to the extent that applicable law requires withholding at a higher rate), and any employment or other applicable taxes from the Target Payment, and remit such taxes to the appropriate authorities, and (b) to pay the remainder of the Target Payment into Subaccount TP in cash.

 

2.2 For any calendar year, the Target Payment to be made early in the following year will be determined in accordance with the following provisions.

 

(a) The Target Payment will include the sum of the amounts determined under Sections 2.2(a)(i), (ii) and (iii) below:

 

(i) an amount equal to:

 

(A) the present value of the after-tax benefit that the Employee would have accrued for the year if he or she had been a participant in the defined benefit portions of the Supplemental Plans for the year, based solely on the benefit service for that year (but not more than one year) that would have been taken into account under the Supplemental Plans, calculated using reasonable assumptions relating to factors such as, but not limited to, retirement age, earnings in Subaccount TP, and interest rates, all as determined by the Company, and the tax-rate assumptions set forth in Exhibit A; plus

 

(B) the present value of any after-tax benefits other than those described in Section 2.2(a)(i)(A) above that the Employee would have accrued under the defined benefit portions of the Supplemental Plans during the year, if he or she had been a participant in the Supplemental Plans for the year, as a result of continued service with, or changes in compensation from, the Company (or Kraft, if Kraft is then a member of a controlled group of corporations including the Company) during the year, determined using the assumptions set forth in Section 2.2(a)(i)(A) immediately above;

 

(ii) an amount equal to the estimated after-tax value (calculated using

 

-3-


Exhibit 10.4

 

the tax-rate assumptions set forth in Exhibit A) of the deemed Company contribution that would have been allocated to the Employee’s account for the year if he or she had been a participant in the defined contribution portion of the Supplemental Plans for the year; and

 

(iii) an amount estimated by the Company to be sufficient to enable the Employee to pay the applicable income taxes on the earnings of Subaccount TP for the year with respect to which the Target Payment is to be made and on any hypothetical earnings of Assumed Trust Account TP maintained for the Employee pursuant to Section 2.3 for such year if those amounts had been actual earnings;

 

(b) For Target Payments made with respect to 2006 and subsequent years, the amount determined in accordance with Section 2.2(a) will be adjusted, positively or negatively, to reflect:

 

(i) the amount by which the earnings on the assets in Subaccount TP for the year for which the Target payment is being made deviate from the amount the assets in Subaccount TP would have earned if (A) the rate of return for such year on the assets in Subaccount TP attributable to the portions of prior Target Payments that were determined as if the Employee had participated in the defined benefit components of the Supplemental Plans equaled the corresponding earnings rates incorporated in the assumptions described in Section 2.2(a)(i), and (B) the rate of return on the assets in Subaccount TP attributable to the portions of prior Target Payments that were determined as if the Employee had participated in the defined contribution component of the Supplemental Plans equaled the amount that would have been credited under the Supplemental Plans, in both cases treating Subaccount TP as though it contained any balance in Assumed Trust Account TP maintained pursuant to Section 2.3;

 

(ii) the decrease, if any, in the present value of the accrued benefit that would have resulted from not commencing benefits under the defined benefit components of the Supplemental Plans if the Employee had participated in such plans during the year with respect to which the Target Payment is being made, as measured by the decrease, if any, resulting from substituting in the Target Payment calculation made for the year immediately preceding the year with respect to which the Target Payment is being made the Employee’s age as of the end of the year with respect to which the Target Payment is being made;

 

(iii) the increase or decrease that would result from recalculating (as if the Employee had continued participating in the Supplemental Plans and disregarding the present value of the benefit the Employee actually accrued as a participant under the Supplemental Plans before 2005)

 

(A) the present value of the accrued benefit the Employee would have had under the defined benefit components of the Supplemental Plans as of the end of the year immediately preceding the year with respect to

 

-4-


Exhibit 10.4

 

which the Target Payment is to be made, determined using the Employee’s age at the end of the year with respect to which the Target Payment is to be made and the interest rate used under Section 2.2(a)(i) in determining the lump sum value as of the assumed retirement age for purposes of calculating the present value referred to in that section, as in effect for the year immediately preceding the year with respect to which the Target Payment is to be made, by using

 

(B) the interest rate used under Section 2.2(a)(i) in determining the lump sum value as of the assumed retirement age for purposes of calculating the present value referred to in that section, as in effect for the year with respect to which the Target Payment is to be made;

 

(iv) the effect of any difference between the rates at which contributions were made to any qualified defined contribution plans for the year immediately preceding the year with respect to which the Target Payment is to be made and those assumed in determining the portion of the Target Payment for such preceding year that was determined as if the Employee had participated in the defined contribution component of the Supplemental Plans;

 

(v) the effect of any discrepancies from actual data (such as service, compensation, elective deferrals, etc.) from those used in determining the Target Payment for the preceding year;

 

(vi) the amount by which the portion of the Target Payment determined under Section 2.2(a)(iii) for the year preceding the year with respect to which the Target Payment is being made differs from the amount that such portion of such Target Payment would have been if the actual amount and character of the relevant earnings on the assets in Subaccount TP (treating the amount credited as hypothetical earnings to Assumed Trust Account TP maintained for the Employee pursuant to Section 2.3 as if those amounts were actual earnings) had been known at the time that portion of the Target Payment for the year preceding the year with respect to which the Target Payment is being made was determined;

 

(vii) the effect that using the Federal, state and local income tax rates applicable under Exhibit A and in effect in the year for which the Target Payment is being made would have had on the after-tax values taken into account in Sections 2.2(a)(i) and (ii) in calculating prior Target Payments; and

 

(viii) to the extent not otherwise reflected in the calculations under Section 2.2(a), the effect of any increases or decreases in the limitations on compensation taken into account in, benefits under, or contributions to tax-qualified retirement plans.

 

-5-


Exhibit 10.4

 

 

Notwithstanding the foregoing, if the Employee is not actively employed by the Company (for this purpose treating Kraft as part of the Company so long as Kraft is then a member of a controlled group of corporations including the Company) on September 30 of the year for which the Target Payment is made (unless the Employee’s employment was terminated involuntarily or was terminated (1) as the result of the Employee’s death or disability (2) within 60 days after the Employee attained age 55, or (3) within 60 days after the Employee attained age 65), only those adjustments described in Sections 2.2(b)(i) through (viii) above that would decrease the amount of the Target Payment will be taken into account. In addition, no adjustment will be made under any provision of this Section 2.2(b) to the extent that it would duplicate an adjustment made under any other provision of this Section 2.2(b). Similarly, no adjustment will be made under this Section 2.2(b) to the extent that section 409A of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the “Code”) allows the Company to make payments currently without penalty with respect to the benefit the Employee had accrued under the Supplemental Plans as of December 31, 2004 and such current payments would result in a duplicative payment to the Employee.

 

(c) The Target Payment will be an amount sufficient to cause the amount remaining after withholding of income taxes (determined as if withholding for federal, state and local income taxes were effected at the rates specified in Exhibit A), but disregarding any withholding for the Employee’s share of employment taxes, to equal the amount determined under Section 2.2(a) as adjusted in accordance with Section 2.2(b).

 

2.3 The Company will maintain an assumed account (“Assumed Trust Account TP”) to which it will credit each year an amount equal to the sum of (a) the amount paid as the Employee’s share of employment taxes with respect to the Target Payment made during the year, and (b) the amount by which the federal, state and local income taxes actually withheld from such Target Payment exceeded the amount that would have been withheld if withholding were effected at the rate or rates specified in Exhibit A, each as determined in its discretion by the Company. In addition, in the event all or a portion of the funds in Subaccount TP are attached by court order or other legal process or are otherwise alienated to third parties, the amount so attached will be credited to Assumed Trust Account TP as of the date of the attachment or alienation. The Company will also credit to or debit from, as appropriate, Assumed Trust Account TP each year an amount equal to the amount the balance in Assumed Trust Account TP would have earned or lost if that balance were invested in the same manner as the assets of Subaccount TP.

 

2.4 For any year, the Company will make the Target Payment to the Employee by March 15 of the following year, except in any case in which reasonable administrative delay causes the Company to make the Target Payment as of a later date within the same calendar year.

 

2.5 The Company has the right to discontinue making Target Payments to the Employee at any time. If, however, the Company discontinues making Target Payments to the Employee, the Employee will become covered under the Supplemental Plans, in accordance with their terms at the time, commencing as of the first day of the year following the year for which

 

-6-


Exhibit 10.4

 

the Company last made a Target Payment to the Employee, to the extent permissible under Code section 409A and disregarding for purposes of the accrual of benefits any service for the years during which the Employee was not a participant in the Supplemental Plans.

 

III. Tax Payments With Respect to Trust Earnings

 

3.1 Each year trust assets will be distributed to the Employee to provide the Employee with the amounts estimated by the Administrator, using the tax-rate assumptions set forth in Exhibit A, to be sufficient to pay federal, state, local and other applicable income taxes with respect to any earnings of Subaccount TP.

 

IV. Appointment of ALCS as Agent

 

4.1 The Employee appoints ALCS and such persons as may be designated to act on behalf of ALCS as his or her duly authorized agent for the following purposes: (a) providing, in accordance with the duties of the “Administrator” as set forth in the form of Trust Agreement attached to the Original Enrollment Agreement as Exhibit A, information and direction to the trustee of the Trust; (b) removing the trustee and appointing a successor trustee of the Trust; (c) examining the books and records of the Trust; (d) amending the Trust as to ministerial matters (and as to other matters, with the consent of the Employee); and (e) terminating the Trust.

 

4.2 The Employee’s appointment of ALCS as his or her agent is based on the Employee’s special trust and confidence in ALCS, its management and its parent corporation, Altria Group, Inc. In the event of a Change of Control (as defined in Section 7.4) of ALCS or Altria Group, Inc., the Employee (or, if applicable, the Employee’s Spouse or Beneficiaries under the Trust Agreement) may remove ALCS (or its successor) and any designee of ALCS as the duly authorized agent for purposes of carrying out the actions set forth in Section 4.1 by delivering to both ALCS (or its successor) and the trustee of the Trust, within any period of two days, written notice of such removal. The trustee shall not be required to verify that there has been a Change of Control and shall be entitled to rely upon the Employee’s notice of removal unless ALCS provides to the trustee (within 10 days following the trustee’s receipt of the notice of removal from the Employee) written notice certifying that no Change of Control has occurred.

 

4.3 ALCS shall cease to be the Employee’s agent upon termination of the Trust for any reason provided in the Trust Agreement or upon removal of ALCS as Administrator following a Change of Control as provided in Section 4.2 above.

 

V. Assignment and Attachment of Trust Assets

 

5.1 The Employee and the Employee’s Spouse understand and agree that, except for any distributions from the Trust to pay taxes as provided in this Agreement, neither they nor the Employee’s Beneficiary(ies), as designated by the Employee at the time the Employee executed this Agreement or pursuant to any later beneficiary designation completed by the Employee and filed with the Administrator, may receive any amounts from Subaccount TP at any time earlier

 

-7-


Exhibit 10.4

 

than the Employee’s termination of employment. Thus, should any amounts under Subaccount TP be assigned to the Employee’s Spouse or any other party pursuant to a domestic relations order or otherwise, the Employee’s Spouse agrees that such amounts shall not be payable under such order until the Employee’s termination of employment. If the Employee or the Employee’s Spouse resides in a community property state, the Employee and the Employee’s Spouse understand and agree that all amounts held in the Trust shall be treated as the Employee’s separate property to the extent permitted by applicable law.

 

VI. Termination

 

6.1 This Agreement shall terminate 30 days after the date on which the last Target Payment is made or, if later, 30 days after the date on which all amounts are distributed from Subaccount TP.

 

6.2 Notwithstanding the above, during the lifetime of the Employee, this Agreement may be terminated at any time by ALCS or the Company upon providing 30 days written notice to the Employee, or by the Employee providing 30 days written notice (or such lesser period as the Company may prescribe) to ALCS and the Company. Any such termination shall operate on a prospective basis only and shall not operate to release the funds already in Subaccount TP or to otherwise alter the application of the terms of this Agreement to such funds. In addition, if this Agreement is terminated by the Employee, the Employee will not thereafter become a participant in the Supplemental Plans.

 

VII. Miscellaneous

 

7.1 Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed to confer upon the Employee the right to continue in the employment of the Company or Kraft, or to require the Company or Kraft to continue the employment of the Employee.

 

7.2 This Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of ALCS, the Company, their successors and assigns, the Employee, the Employee’s Spouse and the Employee’s Beneficiary(ies) under the Trust Agreement, and their heirs, executors, other successors in interest, administrators, and legal representatives.

 

7.3 The validity and interpretation of this Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of New York.

 

7.4 Change of Control . For the purpose of this Agreement, a “Change of Control” shall mean:

 

 

(a)

The acquisition by any individual, entity or group (within the meaning of Section 13(d)(3) or 14(d)(2) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”)) (a “Person”) of beneficial ownership (within the meaning of Rule 13d-3 promulgated under the Exchange Act) of 20% or more of either (i) the then outstanding shares of common stock

 

-8-


Exhibit 10.4

 

 

of Altria Group, Inc. (the “Outstanding Company Common Stock”) or (ii) the combined voting power of the then outstanding voting securities of Altria Group, Inc. entitled to vote generally in the election of directors (the “Outstanding Company Voting Securities”); provided, however, that the following acquisitions shall not constitute a Change of Control: (i) any acquisition directly from Altria Group, Inc. or any corporation or other entity controlled by Altria Group, Inc. (the “Affiliated Group”) (ii) any acquisition by a member of the Affiliated Group, (iii) any acquisition by any employee benefit plan (or related trust) sponsored or maintained by a member of the Affiliated Group or (iv) any acquisition by any corporation pursuant to a transaction which complies with clauses (i), (ii) and (iii) of subsection (c) of this Section 8.5; or

 

 

(b)

Individuals who, as of the date hereof, constitute the Board of Directors of Altria Group, Inc. (the “Incumbent Board”) cease for any reason to constitute at least a majority of the Board; provided, however, that any individual becoming a director subsequent to the date hereof whose election, or nomination for election by Altria Group, Inc.’s shareholders was approved by a vote of at least a majority of the directors then comprising the Incumbent Board shall be considered as though such individual were a member of the Incumbent Board, but excluding, for this purpose, any such individual whose initial assumption of office occurs as a result of an actual or threatened election contest with respect to the election or removal of directors or other actual or threatened solicitation of proxies or consents by or on behalf of a Person other than the Board; or

 

 

(c)

A reorganization, merger, share exchange or consolidation (a “Business Combination”), in each case, unless, following such Business Combination, (i) all or substantially all of the individuals and entities who were the beneficial owners, respectively, of the Outstanding Company Common Stock and Outstanding Company Voting Securities immediately prior to such Business Combination beneficially own, directly or indirectly, more than 60% of, respectively, the then outstanding shares of common stock and the combined voting power of the then outstanding voting securities entitled to vote generally in the election of directors, as the case may be, of the corporation resulting from such Business Combination (including, without limitation, a corporation which as a result of such transaction owns such shares and voting power through one or more subsidiaries) in substantially the same proportions as their ownership, immediately prior to such Business Combination, of the Outstanding Company Common Stock and Outstanding Company Voting Securities, as the case may be, (ii) no Person (excluding any employee benefit plan (or related trust) of any member of the Affiliated Group or such corporation resulting from such Business Combination) beneficially owns, directly or indirectly, 40% or more of, respectively, the then

 

-9-


Exhibit 10.4

 

 

outstanding shares of common stock of the corporation resulting from such Business Combination or the combined voting power of the then outstanding voting securities of such corporation except to the extent that such ownership existed prior to the Business Combination and (iii) at least a majority of the members of the board of directors of the corporation resulting from such Business Combination were members of the Incumbent Board at the time of the execution of the initial agreement or at the time of the action of the Board providing for such Business Combination or were elected, appointed or nominated by the Board; or

 

 

(d)

A (i) complete liquidation or dissolution of Altria Group, Inc. or (ii) sale or other disposition of all or substantially all of the assets of Altria Group, Inc., other than to a corporation, with respect to which following such sale or other disposition, (A) more than 60% of, respectively, the then outstanding shares of common stock of such corporation and the combined voting power of the then outstanding voting securities of such corporation entitled to vote generally in the election of directors is then beneficially owned, directly or indirectly, by all or substantially all of the individuals and entities who were the beneficial owners, respectively, of the Outstanding Company Common Stock and Outstanding Company Voting Securities immediately prior to such sale or other disposition in substantially the same proportion as their ownership, immediately prior to such sale or other disposition, of the Outstanding Company Common Stock and Outstanding Company Voting Securities, as the case may be, (B) less than 40% of, respectively, the then outstanding shares of common stock of such corporation and the combined voting power of the then outstanding voting securities of such corporation entitled to vote generally in the election of directors is then beneficially owned, directly or indirectly, by any Person (excluding any employee benefit plan (or related trust) of any member of the Affiliated Group or such corporation), except to the extent that such Person owned 40% or more of the Outstanding Company Common Stock or Outstanding Company Voting Securities prior to the sale or disposition and (C) at least a majority of the members of the board of directors of such corporation were members of the Incumbent Board at the time of the execution of the initial agreement or at the time of the action of the Board providing for such sale or other disposition of assets of Altria Group, Inc. or were elected, appointed or nominated by the Board; or

 

 

(e)

the entry of an order for relief against Altria Group, Inc. as debtor in a case under the United States Bankruptcy Code, as amended.

 

 

(f)

Members of the Affiliated Group cease to own, directly or indirectly, more than 60% of the combined voting power of the then outstanding voting securities of ALCS entitled to vote generally in the election of directors of ALCS, unless all of the services to be provided by ALCS as Administrator

 

-10-


Exhibit 10.4

 

 

hereunder are provided by another member of the Affiliated Group.

 

7.5 If no one signs this Agreement as the Employee’s Spouse, the Employee hereby certifies that he or she has no spouse as of the date of this Agreement and further agrees to obtain the signature of any spouse to whom he or she may become married in the future as a party to this Agreement.

 

7.6 It is understood and agreed that all rights and obligations arising out of this Agreement relating to any spouse, Beneficiary(ies) of Subaccount TP or any other third parties are derived from the rights of the Employee under this Agreement and that all provisions of this Agreement relating to any such third parties are to be construed as binding on such third parties as if they had expressly agreed in writing to such provisions.

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Employee, the Employee’s Spouse, and ALCS have caused this Agreement to be executed as of the day and year first above written.

 

Attest:

       
                 
               

Signature of Employee

 

Attest:

       
             
               

Signature of Employee’s Spouse

 

This Agreement is executed on behalf of ALCS and other participating employers in the Supplemental Plans, including those listed on Exhibit B.

 

Attest:

 

       

Altria Corporate Services, Inc.

       

By:

   
                 

 

Attachments:

 

Exhibit A: Tax-Rate Assumptions

 

Exhibit B: List of Participating Employers

 

-11-


Exhibit 10.4

 

EXHIBIT A: Tax-Rate Assumptions

 

Federal income tax rate: the highest marginal Federal income tax rate as adjusted for the Federal deduction of state and local taxes and the phase out of Federal deductions under current law (or as adjusted under any subsequently enacted similar provisions of the Code).

 

State income tax rate:

 

 

For purposes of Section 2.2(c), generally, the highest adjusted marginal state income tax rate based on the state in which the Employee is or was last employed by the Company (or Kraft, if Kraft is then a member of a controlled group of corporations including the Company) as of the date the payment is made.

 

 

For all other purposes, the highest adjusted marginal state income tax rate based on the Employee’s state of residence on the last day worked by the Employee in the year for which the Target Payment is being made.

 

Local income tax rate:

 

 

For purposes of Section 2.2(c), generally, the highest adjusted marginal local income tax rate (taking into account the Employee’s resident or nonresident status) based on the locality in which the Employee is or was last employed by the Company (or Kraft, if Kraft is then a member of a controlled group of corporations including the Company) as of the date the payment is made.

 

 

For all other purposes, the highest adjusted marginal local income tax rate (taking into account the Employee’s resident or nonresident status) based on the Employee’s locality of residence on the last day worked by the Employee in the year for which the Target Payment is being made.

 

Exception:

 

In the case of an Employee who is an expatriate actively employed by the Company and subject to United States taxation for all tax purposes, income taxes shall generally be computed as follows. Expatriate taxes will be calculated assuming the highest marginal Federal income tax rate as adjusted for the Federal deduction of state and local taxes and the phase out of Federal deductions under current law (or as adjusted under any subsequently enacted similar provisions of the Code). The applicable state and local tax rates will be adjusted to reflect an Employee’s expatriate status to the extent appropriate.

 

Capital gains: the ordinary income or capital gains character of items of Trust investment income or deemed investment income shall be taken into account where relevant.

 

The above principles shall generally be applied in determining tax-rate assumptions for the relevant purpose, but the Company shall have the authority in its discretion to alter the assumptions made where deemed appropriate to take into account particular facts and circumstances.

 

-12-


Exhibit 10.4

 

 

EXHIBIT B: List of Participating Employers

 

   

Altria Group, Inc.

   
   

Altria Corporate Services, Inc.

   
   

Philip Morris USA Inc.

   
   

Philip Morris International Inc.

   
   

Philip Morris Capital Corporation

   

 

And the participating subsidiaries of each of the above entities.

 

-13-

Exhibit 10.36

 

THE ALTRIA GROUP, INC.

2005 PERFORMANCE INCENTIVE PLAN

 

DEFERRED STOCK AGREEMENT

(January 25, 2006)

 

ALTRIA GROUP, INC. (the “Company”), a Virginia corporation, hereby grants to the employee identified in the 2006 Deferred Stock Award section of the Award Statement (the “Employee”) under The Altria Group, Inc. 2005 Performance Incentive Plan (the “Plan”) a Deferred Stock Award (the “Award”) dated January 25, 2006, (the “Award Date”) with respect to the number of shares set forth in the 2006 Deferred Stock Award section of the Award Statement (the “Deferred Shares”) of the Common Stock of the Company (the “Common Stock”), all in accordance with and subject to the following terms and conditions:

 

1. Restrictions .    Subject to Section 2 below, the restrictions on the Deferred Shares shall lapse and the Deferred Shares shall vest on the Vesting Date set forth in the 2006 Deferred Stock Award section of the Award Statement (the “Vesting Date”), provided that the Employee remains an employee of the Company (or a subsidiary or affiliate) during the entire period commencing on the Award Date set forth in the Award Statement and ending on the Vesting Date.

 

2. Termination of Employment Before Vesting Date .    In the event of the termination of the Employee’s employment with the Company (and with all subsidiaries and affiliates of the Company) prior to the Vesting Date due to death, Disability or Normal Retirement, the restrictions on the Deferred Shares shall lapse and the Deferred Shares shall become fully vested on the date of death, Disability, or Normal Retirement.

 

 If the Employee’s employment with the Company (and with all subsidiaries and affiliates of the Company) is terminated for any reason other than death, Disability, or Normal Retirement prior to the Vesting Date, the Employee shall forfeit all rights to the Deferred Shares. Notwithstanding the foregoing, upon the termination of an Employee’s employment with the Company (and with all subsidiaries and affiliates of the Company, applying an 80% threshold to the definitions contained in Section 9), the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors of the Company may, in its sole discretion, waive the restrictions on, and the vesting requirements for, the Deferred Shares.

 

3. Voting and Dividend Rights .    The Employee does not have the right to vote the Deferred Shares or receive dividends prior to the date, if any, such Deferred Shares are paid to the Employee in the form of Common Stock pursuant to the terms hereof. However, unless otherwise determined by the Committee, the Employee shall receive cash payments (less applicable withholding taxes) in lieu of dividends otherwise payable with respect to shares of Common Stock equal in number to the Deferred Shares that have not been forfeited, as such dividends are paid.

 

4. Transfer Restrictions .    This Award and the Deferred Shares are non-transferable and may not be assigned, hypothecated or otherwise pledged and shall not be subject to execution, attachment or similar process. Upon any attempt to effect any such disposition, or upon the levy of any such process, the Award shall immediately become null and void and the Deferred Shares shall be forfeited. These restrictions shall not apply, however, to any payments received pursuant to Section 7 below.

 

5. Withholding Taxes .    The Company is authorized to satisfy the actual minimum statutory withholding taxes arising from the granting, vesting, or payment of this Award, as the case may be, by deducting the number of Deferred Shares having an aggregate value equal to the amount of withholding taxes due from the total number of Deferred Shares awarded, vested, paid, or


Exhibit 10.36

 

otherwise becoming subject to current taxation. The Company is also authorized to satisfy the actual withholding taxes arising from the granting or vesting of this Award, or hypothetical withholding tax amounts if the Employee is covered under a Company tax equalization policy, as the case may be, by the remittance of the required amounts from any proceeds realized upon the open-market sale of the Common Stock received in payment of vested Deferred Shares by the Employee. Deferred Shares deducted from this Award in satisfaction of actual minimum withholding tax requirements shall be valued at the Fair Market Value of the Common Stock received in payment of vested Deferred Shares on the date as of which the amount giving rise to the withholding requirement first became includible in the gross income of the Employee under applicable tax laws. If the Employee is covered by a Company tax equalization policy, the Employee also agrees to pay to the Company any additional hypothetical tax obligation calculated and paid under the terms and conditions of such tax equalization policy.

 

6. Death of Employee .    If any of the Deferred Shares shall vest upon the death of the Employee, any Common Stock received in payment of the vested Deferred Shares shall be registered in the name of the estate of the Employee except that, to the extent permitted by the Compensation Committee, if the Company shall have theretofore received in writing a beneficiary designation, the Common Stock shall be registered in the name of the designated beneficiary.

 

7. Payment of Deferred Shares .    Each Deferred Share granted pursuant to this Award represents an unfunded and unsecured promise of the Company to issue to the Employee, on or as soon as practicable after the date the Deferred Share becomes fully vested pursuant to Section 1 or 2 and otherwise subject to the terms of this Agreement, the value of one share of the Common Stock. Except as otherwise expressly provided in the 2005 Deferred Stock Award section of the Award Statement and subject to the terms of this Agreement, such issuance shall be made to the Employee (or, in the event of his or her death to the Employee’s estate or beneficiary as provided above) in the form of Common Stock as soon as practicable following the full vesting of the Deferred Share pursuant to Section 1 or 2.

 

8. Special Payment Provisions .    Notwithstanding anything in this Agreement to the contrary, if the Employee is (i) a “specified employee” within the meaning of section 409A(a)(2)(B) of the Internal Revenue Code and the regulations thereunder and (ii) subject to US Federal income tax on any part of the payment of the Deferred Shares, then any payment of Deferred Shares under Section 7 that is on account of his termination of employment shall be delayed until six months following the Employee’s termination of employment. In addition, if the Employee is subject to US Federal income tax on any part of the payment of the Deferred Shares, the Employee is not vested in his Deferred Shares, and the Employee (i) becomes eligible for Normal Retirement while employed by a subsidiary or affiliate of the Company that would not be a subsidiary or affiliate applying an 80% threshold to the definitions contained in Section 9 or (ii) becomes eligible for Normal Retirement and subsequently transfers to a subsidiary or affiliate of the Company that would not be a subsidiary or affiliate applying an 80% threshold to the definitions contained in Section 9, then the Employee’s Deferred Shares shall be paid to the Employee at such time in accordance with Section 7, subject to a six-month delay from the date treated as a “separation from service” within the meaning of section 409A(a)(2)(A)(i) of the Internal Revenue Code and the regulations thereunder, if applicable pursuant to the first sentence of this Section 8.

 

9. Other Terms and Provisions .    The terms and provisions of the Plan (a copy of which will be furnished to the Employee upon written request to the Office of the Secretary, Altria Group, Inc., 120 Park Avenue, New York, New York 10017) are incorporated herein by reference. To the extent any provision of this Award is inconsistent or in conflict with any term or provision of the Plan, the Plan shall govern. For purposes of this Agreement, (a) the term “Disability” means permanent and total disability as determined under procedures established by the Company for purposes of the Plan, and (b) the term “Normal Retirement” means retirement from active employment under a pension plan of the Company, any subsidiary or affiliate or under an


Exhibit 10.36

 

employment contract with any of them on or after the date specified as the normal retirement age in the pension plan or employment contract, if any, under which the Employee is at that time accruing pension benefits for his or her current service (or, in the absence of a specified normal retirement age, the age at which pension benefits under such plan or contract become payable without reduction for early commencement and without any requirement of a particular period of prior service). In any case in which (i) the meaning of “Normal Retirement” is uncertain under the definition contained in the prior sentence or (ii) a termination of employment at or after age 65 would not otherwise constitute “Normal Retirement,” an Employee’s termination of employment shall be treated as a “Normal Retirement” under such circumstances as the Committee, in its sole discretion, deems equivalent to retirement. Generally, for purposes of this Agreement, (x) a “subsidiary” includes only any company in which the Company, directly or indirectly, has a beneficial ownership interest of greater than 50 percent and (y) an “affiliate” includes only any company that (A) has a beneficial ownership interest, directly or indirectly, in the Company of greater than 50 percent or (B) is under common control with the Company through a parent company that, directly or indirectly, has a beneficial ownership interest of greater than 50 percent in both the Company and the affiliate. In the event of any merger, share exchange, reorganization, consolidation, recapitalization, reclassification, distribution, stock dividend, stock split, reverse stock split, split-up, spin-off, issuance of rights or warrants or other similar transaction or event affecting the Common Stock after the date of this Award, the Board of Directors of the Company is authorized, to the extent it deems appropriate, to make adjustments to the number and kind of shares of stock subject to this Award, including the substitution of equity interests in other entities involved in such transactions, to provide for cash payments in lieu of Deferred Shares, and to determine whether continued employment with any entity resulting from such a transaction will or will not be treated as continued employment with the Company or a subsidiary or affiliate. Capitalized terms not otherwise defined herein have the meaning set forth in the Plan.

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Deferred Stock Agreement has been duly executed as of January 25, 2006.

 

 

ALTRIA GROUP, INC.

By:

 

LOGO

   

Senior Vice President

Human Resources & Administration

Exhibit 12

 

ALTRIA GROUP, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

Computation of Ratios of Earnings to Fixed Charges

(in millions of dollars)

 


 

     For the Years Ended December 31,

 
     2005

    2004

    2003

    2002

    2001

 

Earnings from continuing operations before income taxes, minority interest and cumulative effect of accounting change

   $ 15,435     $ 14,004     $ 14,609     $ 17,945     $ 14,117  

Add (deduct):

                                        

Equity in net earnings of less than 50% owned affiliates

     (247 )     (141 )     (205 )     (235 )     (228 )

Dividends from less than 50% owned affiliates

     225       200       157       45       29  

Fixed charges

     1,881       1,787       1,730       1,678       1,984  

Interest capitalized, net of amortization

     (7 )             10       10       10  
    


 


 


 


 


Earnings available for fixed charges

   $ 17,287     $ 15,850     $ 16,301     $ 19,443     $ 15,912  
    


 


 


 


 


Fixed charges:

                                        

Interest incurred:

                                        

Consumer products

   $ 1,525     $ 1,427     $ 1,370     $ 1,331     $ 1,665  

Financial services

     107       94       105       100       102  
    


 


 


 


 


       1,632       1,521       1,475       1,431       1,767  

Portion of rent expense deemed to represent interest factor

     249       266       255       247       217  
    


 


 


 


 


Fixed charges

   $ 1,881     $ 1,787     $ 1,730     $ 1,678     $ 1,984  
    


 


 


 


 


Ratio of earnings to fixed charges (A)

     9.2       8.9       9.4       11.6       8.0  
    


 


 


 


 


 

(A) Earnings from continuing operations before income taxes and minority interest for the year ended December 31, 2002, include a non-recurring pre-tax gain of $2,631 million related to the Miller Brewing Company transaction. Excluding this gain, the ratio of earnings to fixed charges would have been 10.0 to 1.0 for the year ended December 31, 2002.

Exhibit 13

 

 

FINANCIAL REVIEW

 

    
   
Financial Contents     
    Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations    page 17
    Selected Financial Data — Five-Year Review    page 41
    Consolidated Balance Sheets    page 42
    Consolidated Statements of Earnings    page 44
    Consolidated Statements of Stockholders’ Equity    page 45
    Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows    page 46
    Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements    page 48
    Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm    page 80
    Report of Management on Internal Control Over Financial Reporting    page 81
          

Guide to Select Disclosures

    
    For easy reference, areas that may be of interest to investors are highlighted in the index below.     
    Acquisitions — Note 5 includes a discussion of the PT HM Sampoerna Tbk acquisition    page 53
    Benefit Plans — Note 16 includes a discussion of pension plans    page 62
    Contingencies — Note 19 includes a discussion of litigation    page 67
    Finance Assets, net — Note 8 includes a discussion of leasing activities    page 53
    Segment Reporting — Note 15    page 60
    Stock Plans — Note 12 includes a discussion of stock compensation    page 57
16

 


Exhibit 13

 

 

Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations

 

Description of the Company

 

Throughout Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations, the term “Altria Group, Inc.” refers to the consolidated financial position, results of operations and cash flows of the Altria family of companies and the term “ALG” refers solely to the parent company. ALG’s wholly-owned subsidiaries, Philip Morris USA Inc. (“PM USA”) and Philip Morris International Inc. (“PMI”), and its majority-owned (87.2% as of December 31, 2005) subsidiary, Kraft Foods Inc. (“Kraft”), are engaged in the manufacture and sale of various consumer products, including cigarettes and other tobacco products, packaged grocery products, snacks, beverages, cheese and convenient meals. Philip Morris Capital Corporation (“PMCC”), another wholly-owned subsidiary, maintains a portfolio of leveraged and direct finance leases. In addition, ALG had a 28.7% economic and voting interest in SABMiller plc (“SABMiller”) at December 31, 2005. ALG’s access to the operating cash flows of its subsidiaries consists of cash received from the payment of dividends and interest, and the repayment of amounts borrowed from ALG by its subsidiaries.

 

As previously communicated, for significant business reasons, the Board of Directors is looking at a number of restructuring alternatives, including the possibility of separating Altria Group, Inc. into two, or potentially three, independent entities. Continuing improvements in the entire litigation environment are a prerequisite to such action by the Board of Directors, and the timing and chronology of events are uncertain.

 

In June 2005, Kraft sold substantially all of its sugar confectionery business for pre-tax proceeds of approximately $1.4 billion. Altria Group, Inc. has reflected the results of Kraft’s sugar confectionery business prior to the closing date as discontinued operations on the consolidated statements of earnings for all years presented. The assets related to the sugar confectionery business were reflected as assets of discontinued operations held for sale on the consolidated balance sheet at December 31, 2004.

 

In March 2005, a subsidiary of PMI acquired 40% of the outstanding shares of PT HM Sampoerna Tbk (“Sampoerna”), an Indonesian tobacco company. In May 2005, PMI purchased an additional 58%, for a total of 98%. The total cost of the transaction was $4.8 billion, including Sampoerna’s cash of $0.3 billion and debt of the U.S. dollar equivalent of $0.2 billion. The purchase price was primarily financed through a euro 4.5 billion bank credit facility arranged for PMI and its subsidiaries, consisting of a euro 2.5 billion three-year term loan facility and a euro 2.0 billion five-year revolving credit facility. These facilities are not guaranteed by ALG.

 

Sampoerna’s financial position and results of operations have been fully consolidated with PMI as of June 1, 2005. From March 2005 to May 2005, PMI recorded equity earnings in Sampoerna. Sampoerna contributed $315 million of operating income and $128 million of net earnings since March 2005.

 

Kraft’s operating subsidiaries generally report year-end results as of the Saturday closest to the end of each year. This resulted in fifty-three weeks of operating results for Kraft in the consolidated statement of earnings for the year ended December 31, 2005, versus fifty-two weeks for the years ended December 31, 2004 and 2003.

 

Executive Summary

 

The following executive summary is intended to provide significant highlights of the Discussion and Analysis that follows.

 

·   Consolidated Operating Results – The changes in Altria Group, Inc.’s earnings from continuing operations and diluted earnings per share (“EPS”) from continuing operations for the year ended December 31, 2005, from the year ended December 31, 2004, were due primarily to the following:

 

(in millions, except per share data)        


   Earnings
from
Continuing
Operations


    Diluted EPS
from
Continuing
Operations


 

For the year ended December 31, 2004

   $ 9,420     $ 4.57  

2004 Domestic tobacco headquarters relocation charges

     20       0.01  

2004 International tobacco E.C. agreement

     161       0.08  

2004 Asset impairment, exit and implementation costs

     446       0.21  

2004 Loss on sales of businesses

     2       -  

2004 Investment impairment

     26       0.01  

2004 Provision for airline industry exposure

     85       0.04  

2004 Tax items

     (419 )     (0.20 )

2004 Gains from investments at SABMiller

     (111 )     (0.05 )
    


 


Subtotal 2004 items

     210       0.10  

2005 Domestic tobacco headquarters relocation charges

     (2 )     -  

2005 Domestic tobacco loss on U.S. tobacco pool

     (87 )     (0.04 )

2005 Domestic tobacco quota buy-out

     72       0.03  

2005 Asset impairment, exit and implementation costs

     (426 )     (0.21 )

2005 Tax items

     521       0.25  

2005 Gains on sales of businesses, net

     60       0.03  

2005 Provision for airline industry exposure

     (129 )     (0.06 )
    


 


Subtotal 2005 items

     9       -  

Currency

     272       0.13  

Change in effective tax rate

     332       0.16  

Higher shares outstanding

             (0.07 )

Operations (including the impact of Kraft’s 53rd week)

     425       0.21  
    


 


For the year ended December 31, 2005

   $ 10,668     $ 5.10  
    


 


 

See discussion of events affecting the comparability of statement of earnings amounts in the Consolidated Operating Results section of the following Discussion and Analysis. Amounts shown above that relate to Kraft are reported net of the related minority interest impact.

 

·   Domestic Tobacco Loss on U.S. Tobacco Pool As further discussed in Note 19. Contingencies , in October 2004, the Fair and Equitable Tobacco Reform Act of 2004 (“FETRA”) was signed into law. Under the provisions of FETRA, PM USA was obligated to cover its share of potential losses that the government may incur on the disposition of pool tobacco stock accumulated under the previous tobacco price support program. In 2005, PM USA recorded a $138 million pre-tax expense for its share of the loss.

 

·    Domestic Tobacco Quota Buy-Out – The provisions of FETRA require PM USA, along with other manufacturers and importers of tobacco products, to make quarterly payments that will be used to compensate tobacco growers and quota holders affected by the legislation. Payments made by PM USA

 

17


Exhibit 13

 

 

under FETRA will offset amounts due under the provisions of the National Tobacco Grower Settlement Trust (“NTGST”), a trust formerly established to compensate tobacco growers and quota holders. Disputes arose as to the applicability of FETRA to 2004 NTGST payments. During the third quarter of 2005, a North Carolina Supreme Court ruling determined that FETRA enactment had not triggered the offset provisions during 2004 and that tobacco companies were required to make full payment to the NTGST for the full year of 2004. The ruling, along with FETRA billings from the United States Department of Agriculture (“USDA”), established that FETRA was effective beginning in 2005. Accordingly, during the third quarter of 2005, PM USA reversed a prior year pre-tax accrual for FETRA payments in the amount of $115 million.

 

·   Asset Impairment, Exit and Implementation Costs In January 2004, Kraft announced a three-year restructuring program. During the years ended December 31, 2005 and 2004, Kraft recorded pre-tax charges of $297 million ($178 million after taxes and minority interest) and $633 million ($356 million after taxes and minority interest), respectively, for the restructuring plan, including pre-tax implementation costs of $87 million and $50 million, respectively. In addition, in January 2006, Kraft announced plans to expand its restructuring efforts beyond those originally contemplated. Additional pre-tax charges are anticipated to be $2.5 billion from 2006 to 2009, reflecting additional organizational streamlining and facility closures. The entire program is expected to ultimately result in $3.7 billion in pre-tax charges, the closure of up to 40 facilities and the elimination of approximately 14,000 positions. Approximately $2.3 billion of the $3.7 billion in pre-tax charges are expected to require cash payments.

 

During 2005, Kraft incurred pre-tax asset impairment charges of $269 million ($151 million after taxes and minority interest), relating to the sale of its fruit snacks assets and the pending sales of certain assets in Canada and a small biscuit brand in the United States. In addition, during 2005, PMI and Altria Group, Inc. recorded pre-tax asset impairment and exit costs of $139 million ($97 million after taxes). For further details on the restructuring program or asset impairment, exit and implementation costs, see Note 3 to the Consolidated Financial Statements and the Food Business Environment section of the following Discussion and Analysis.

 

·   International Tobacco E.C. Agreement In July 2004, PMI entered into an agreement with the European Commission (“E.C.”) and 10 member states of the European Union that provides for broad cooperation with European law enforcement agencies on anti-contraband and anti-counterfeit efforts. Under the terms of the agreement, PMI will make 13 payments over 12 years, including an initial payment of $250 million, which was recorded as a pre-tax charge against its earnings in 2004.

 

·   Gains on Sales of Businesses, net The favorable impact is due primarily to the gain on sale of Kraft’s U.K. desserts assets in 2005.

 

·   Provision for Airline Industry Exposure – As discussed in Note 8. Finance Assets, net, during 2005, PMCC increased its allowance for losses by $200 million, reflecting its exposure to the troubled airline industry, particularly to Delta Air Lines, Inc. (“Delta”) and Northwest Airlines, Inc. (“Northwest”), both of which filed for bankruptcy protection during 2005. During 2004, in recognition of the economic downturn in the airline industry, PMCC increased its allowance for losses by $140 million.

 

·   Currency The favorable currency impact on earnings from continuing operations and diluted EPS from continuing operations is due primarily to the weakness of the U.S. dollar versus the euro, Japanese yen and Central and Eastern European currencies.

 

·   Income taxes Altria Group, Inc.’s effective tax rate decreased by 2.5 percentage points to 29.9%. The 2005 effective tax rate includes a $372 million benefit related to dividend repatriation under the American Jobs Creation Act in 2005, the reversal of $82 million of tax accruals no longer required at Kraft, as well as other benefits, including the impact of the domestic manufacturers’ deduction under the American Jobs Creation Act and lower repatriation costs. The 2004 effective tax rate includes the reversal of $355 million of tax accruals that are no longer required due to foreign tax events that were resolved during 2004, and an $81 million favorable resolution of an outstanding tax item at Kraft.

 

·   Shares Outstanding – Higher shares outstanding during 2005 primarily reflects exercises of employee stock options and the impact of stock options outstanding.

 

·   Continuing Operations – The increase in results from continuing operations was due primarily to the following:

 

    Higher international tobacco income, reflecting higher pricing, the impact of acquisitions in Indonesia and Colombia, higher income from the return of the Marlboro license in Japan and the impact of a one-time inventory sale in Italy, partially offset by unfavorable volume/mix, expenses related to the E.C. agreement and higher marketing, administration and research costs.

 

    Higher domestic tobacco income, reflecting lower wholesale promotional allowance rates, partially offset by lower volume, a pre-tax provision of $56 million for the Boeken individual smoking case, and higher research and development expenses.

 

These increases were partially offset by:

 

    Lower North American food income, reflecting higher commodity and benefit costs, and increased marketing spending, partially offset by higher pricing and favorable volume/mix (including the impact of the extra week of shipments in 2005).

 

    Lower international food income, reflecting higher commodity and developing market infrastructure costs, partially offset by higher pricing and favorable volume/mix (including the impact of the extra week of shipments in 2005).

 

    Lower financial services income, reflecting lower lease portfolio revenues and lower gains from asset sales, partially offset by lower interest expense.

 

For further details, see the Consolidated Operating Results and Operating Results by Business Segment sections of the following Discussion and Analysis.

 

·   2006 Forecasted Results – In January 2006, Altria Group, Inc. announced that it expects forecasted 2006 full-year diluted EPS from continuing operations in a range of $4.85 to $4.95. This forecast includes approximately $0.36 per share in charges associated with the Kraft restructuring program, unfavorable currency of $0.14 per share at current exchange rates, about $0.10 per share for lower tobacco income in Spain, $0.05 per share due to higher shares outstanding, and $0.04 per share as a result of a higher base

 

18


Exhibit 13

 

 

income tax rate of 33.9% versus a corresponding rate of 33.4% in 2005. It does not include any future acquisitions or divestitures, or the benefit of potential tax accrual reversals following the completion of audits in certain jurisdictions. The factors described in the Cautionary Factors That May Affect Future Results section of the following Discussion and Analysis represent continuing risks to this forecast.

 

Discussion and Analysis

 

Critical Accounting Policies and Estimates

 

Note 2 to the consolidated financial statements includes a summary of the significant accounting policies and methods used in the preparation of Altria Group, Inc.’s consolidated financial statements. In most instances, Altria Group, Inc. must use an accounting policy or method because it is the only policy or method permitted under accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (“U.S. GAAP”).

 

The preparation of financial statements includes the use of estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities, the disclosure of contingent liabilities at the dates of the financial statements and the reported amounts of net revenues and expenses during the reporting periods. If actual amounts are ultimately different from previous estimates, the revisions are included in Altria Group, Inc.’s consolidated results of operations for the period in which the actual amounts become known. Historically, the aggregate differences, if any, between Altria Group, Inc.’s estimates and actual amounts in any year, have not had a significant impact on its consolidated financial statements.

 

The selection and disclosure of Altria Group, Inc.’s critical accounting policies and estimates have been discussed with Altria Group, Inc.’s Audit Committee. The following is a review of the more significant assumptions and estimates, as well as the accounting policies and methods used in the preparation of Altria Group, Inc.’s consolidated financial statements:

 

·   Consolidation – The consolidated financial statements include ALG, as well as its wholly-owned and majority-owned subsidiaries. Investments in which ALG exercises significant influence (20% — 50% ownership interest), are accounted for under the equity method of accounting. Investments in which ALG has an ownership interest of less than 20%, or does not exercise significant influence, are accounted for with the cost method of accounting. All intercompany transactions and balances have been eliminated.

 

·   Revenue Recognition – As required by U.S. GAAP, Altria Group, Inc.’s consumer products businesses recognize revenues, net of sales incentives and including shipping and handling charges billed to customers, upon shipment or delivery of goods when title and risk of loss pass to customers. ALG’s tobacco subsidiaries also include excise taxes billed to customers in revenues. Shipping and handling costs are classified as part of cost of sales.

 

·   Depreciation, Amortization and Goodwill Valuation – Altria Group, Inc. depreciates property, plant and equipment and amortizes its definite life intangible assets using the straight-line method over the estimated useful lives of the assets.

 

Altria Group, Inc. is required to conduct an annual review of goodwill and intangible assets for potential impairment. Goodwill impairment testing requires a comparison between the carrying value and fair value of each reporting unit. If the carrying value exceeds the fair value, goodwill is considered impaired. The amount of impairment loss is measured as the difference between the carrying value and implied fair value of goodwill, which is determined using discounted cash flows. Impairment testing for non-amortizable intangible assets requires a comparison between the fair value and carrying value of the intangible asset. If the carrying value exceeds fair value, the intangible asset is considered impaired and is reduced to fair value. These calculations may be affected by interest rates, general economic conditions and projected growth rates. During 2005, Altria Group, Inc. completed its annual review of goodwill and intangible assets, and no charges resulted from this review. However, as part of the sale or pending sale of certain Canadian assets and two brands, Kraft recorded total non-cash pre-tax asset impairment charges of $269 million in 2005, which included impairment of goodwill and intangible assets of $13 million and $118 million, respectively, as well as $138 million of asset write-downs. The 2004 review of goodwill and intangible assets resulted in a $29 million non-cash pre-tax charge at Kraft related to an intangible asset impairment for a small confectionery business in the United States and certain brands in Mexico. A portion of this charge, $17 million, was reclassified to (loss) earnings from discontinued operations on the consolidated statement of earnings in the fourth quarter of 2004. The remaining charge was recorded as asset impairment and exit costs on the consolidated statement of earnings.

 

·   Marketing and Advertising Costs – As required by U.S. GAAP, Altria Group, Inc. records marketing costs as an expense in the year to which such costs relate. Altria Group, Inc. does not defer amounts on its year-end consolidated balance sheets with respect to marketing costs. Altria Group, Inc. expenses advertising costs in the year incurred. Consumer incentive and trade promotion activities are recorded as a reduction of revenues based on amounts estimated as being due to customers and consumers at the end of a period, based principally on historical utilization and redemption rates. Such programs include, but are not limited to, discounts, coupons, rebates, in-store display incentives and volume-based incentives. For interim reporting purposes, advertising and certain consumer incentive expenses are charged to operations as a percentage of sales, based on estimated sales and related expenses for the full year.

 

·   Contingencies – As discussed in Note 19 to the consolidated financial statements (“Note 19”), legal proceedings covering a wide range of matters are pending or threatened in various United States and foreign jurisdictions against ALG, its subsidiaries and affiliates, including PM USA and PMI, as well as their respective indemnitees. In 1998, PM USA and certain other United States tobacco product manufacturers entered into the Master Settlement Agreement (the “MSA”) with 46 states and various other governments and jurisdictions to settle asserted and unasserted health care cost recovery and other claims. PM USA and certain other United States tobacco product manufacturers had previously settled similar claims brought by Mississippi, Florida, Texas and Minnesota (together with the MSA, the “State Settlement Agreements”). PM USA’s portion of ongoing adjusted payments and legal fees is based on its relative share of the settling manufacturers’ domestic cigarette shipments, including roll-your-own cigarettes, in the year preceding that in which the payment is due. PM USA records its portion of ongoing settlement payments as part of cost of sales as product is shipped. During the years ended December 31, 2005, 2004 and 2003, PM USA recorded expenses of $5.0 billion, $4.6 billion and $4.4 billion, respectively, as part of cost of sales for the payments under the State Settlement Agreements and payments for tobacco growers and quota holders.

 

ALG and its subsidiaries record provisions in the consolidated financial statements for pending litigation when they determine that an unfavorable

 

19


Exhibit 13

 

 

outcome is probable and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. Except as discussed in Note 19: (i) management has not concluded that it is probable that a loss has been incurred in any of the pending tobacco-related litigation; (ii) management is unable to make a meaningful estimate of the amount or range of loss that could result from an unfavorable outcome of pending tobacco-related litigation; and (iii) accordingly, management has not provided any amounts in the consolidated financial statements for unfavorable outcomes, if any.

 

·   Employee Benefit Plans – As discussed in Note 16. Benefit Plans (“Note 16”) of the notes to the consolidated financial statements, Altria Group, Inc. provides a range of benefits to its employees and retired employees, including pensions, postretirement health care and postemployment benefits (primarily severance). Altria Group, Inc. records annual amounts relating to these plans based on calculations specified by U.S. GAAP, which include various actuarial assumptions, such as discount rates, assumed rates of return on plan assets, compensation increases, turnover rates and health care cost trend rates. Altria Group, Inc. reviews its actuarial assumptions on an annual basis and makes modifications to the assumptions based on current rates and trends when it is deemed appropriate to do so. As permitted by U.S. GAAP, any effect of the modifications is generally amortized over future periods. Altria Group, Inc. believes that the assumptions utilized in recording its obligations under its plans, which are presented in Note 16, are reasonable based on advice from its actuaries.

 

In December 2003, the United States enacted into law the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement and Modernization Act of 2003, establishing a prescription drug benefit known as “Medicare Part D,” and a federal subsidy to sponsors of retiree health care benefit plans that provide a benefit that is at least actuarially equivalent to Medicare Part D.

 

In May 2004, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) issued FASB Staff Position No. 106-2, “Accounting and Disclosure Requirements Related to the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement and Modernization Act of 2003” (“FSP 106-2”). FSP 106-2 requires companies to account for the effect of the subsidy on benefits attributable to past service as an actuarial experience gain and as a reduction of the service cost component of net postretirement health care costs for amounts attributable to current service, if the benefit provided is at least actuarially equivalent to Medicare Part D.

 

Altria Group, Inc. adopted FSP 106-2 in the third quarter of 2004. The impact of FSP 106-2 for 2005 and 2004 was a reduction of pre-tax net postretirement health care costs and an increase in net earnings of $67 million (including $55 million related to Kraft) and $28 million (including $24 million related to Kraft), respectively. In addition, as of July 1, 2004, Altria Group, Inc. reduced its accumulated postretirement benefit obligation for the subsidy related to benefits attributed to past service by $375 million and decreased its unrecognized actuarial losses by the same amount.

 

At December 31, 2005, for its U.S. pension and postretirement plans, Altria Group, Inc. reduced its discount rate assumption to 5.64% and modified its health care cost trend rate assumption. Altria Group, Inc. presently anticipates that these and other less significant assumption changes, coupled with the amortization of deferred gains and losses will result in an increase in 2006 pre-tax benefit expense of approximately $130 million (including $80 million related to Kraft). A fifty basis point decrease (increase) in Altria Group, Inc.’s discount rate would increase (decrease) Altria Group, Inc.’s pension and postretirement expense by approximately $123 million. Similarly, a fifty basis point decrease (increase) in the expected return on plan assets would increase (decrease) Altria Group, Inc.’s pension expense by approximately $56 million. See Note 16 for a sensitivity discussion of the assumed health care cost trend rates.

 

·   Income Taxes – Altria Group, Inc. accounts for income taxes in accordance with Statement of Financial Accounting Standards (“SFAS”) No. 109, “Accounting for Income Taxes.” Under SFAS No. 109, deferred tax assets and liabilities are determined based on the difference between the financial statement and tax bases of assets and liabilities, using enacted tax rates in effect for the year in which the differences are expected to reverse. The provision for income taxes is based on domestic and international statutory income tax rates and tax planning opportunities available in the jurisdictions in which Altria Group, Inc. operates. Significant judgment is required in determining income tax provisions and in evaluating tax positions. ALG and its subsidiaries establish additional provisions for income taxes when, despite the belief that their tax positions are fully supportable, there remain certain positions that are likely to be challenged and that may not be sustained on review by tax authorities. Upon the closure of current and future tax audits in various jurisdictions, significant income tax accrual reversals could continue to occur in 2006. ALG and its subsidiaries evaluate and potentially adjust these accruals in light of changing facts and circumstances. The consolidated tax provision includes the impact of changes to accruals that are considered appropriate.

 

In October 2004, the American Jobs Creation Act (“the Jobs Act”) was signed into law. The Jobs Act includes a deduction for 85% of certain foreign earnings that are repatriated. In 2005, Altria Group, Inc. repatriated $6.0 billion of earnings under the provisions of the Jobs Act. Deferred taxes had previously been provided for a portion of the dividends remitted. The reversal of the deferred taxes more than offset the tax costs to repatriate the earnings and resulted in a net tax reduction of $372 million in the 2005 consolidated income tax provision. This reduction was included in the consolidated statement of earnings as an estimated benefit of $209 million in the second quarter and was subsequently revised to $168 million in the fourth quarter. Altria Group, Inc. recorded an additional $204 million tax benefit, which resulted from a favorable foreign tax law ruling that was received in the third quarter of 2005 related to the repatriation of earnings under the Jobs Act.

 

The Jobs Act also provides tax relief to U.S. domestic manufacturers by providing a tax deduction related to a percentage of the lesser of “qualified production activities income” or taxable income. The deduction, which was 3% in 2005, increases to 9% by 2010. In accordance with SFAS No. 109, Altria Group, Inc. will recognize these benefits in the year earned. The tax benefit in 2005 was approximately $60 million.

 

The tax provision in 2005 includes the $372 million benefit related to dividend repatriation under the Jobs Act in 2005, and the reversal of $82 million of tax accruals no longer required at Kraft, as well as other benefits, including the impact of the domestic manufacturers’ deduction under the Jobs Act and lower repatriation costs. The tax provision in 2004 includes the reversal of $355 million of tax accruals that are no longer required due to foreign tax events that were resolved during the first quarter of 2004 ($35 million) and the second quarter of 2004 ($320 million), and an $81 million favorable resolution of an outstanding tax item at Kraft, the majority of which occurred in the third quarter.

 

Altria Group, Inc. is regularly audited by federal, state and foreign tax authorities, and these audits are at various stages at any given time. Altria Group, Inc. anticipates several domestic and foreign audits will close in 2006 with expected favorable settlements. Any tax contingency reserves in excess of additional assessed liabilities will be reversed at the time the audits close.

 

20


Exhibit 13

 

 

·   Hedging – As discussed below in “Market Risk,” Altria Group, Inc. uses derivative financial instruments principally to reduce exposures to market risks resulting from fluctuations in foreign exchange rates and commodity prices by creating offsetting exposures. Altria Group, Inc. conforms with the requirements of U.S. GAAP in order to account for a substantial portion of its derivative financial instruments as hedges. As a result, gains and losses on these derivatives are deferred in accumulated other comprehensive earnings (losses) and recognized in the consolidated statement of earnings in the periods when the related hedged transaction is also recognized in operating results. If Altria Group, Inc. had elected not to use and comply with the hedge accounting provisions permitted under U.S. GAAP, gains (losses) deferred as of December 31, 2005, 2004 and 2003, would have been recorded in net earnings. Deferred gains (losses) from hedging activities included in other comprehensive earnings (losses), including the impact of currency hedges recorded as cumulative translation adjustments, were deferred gains of $393 million at December 31, 2005, and deferred losses of $358 million and $369 million at December 31, 2004 and 2003, respectively.

 

·   Impairment of Long-Lived Assets – Altria Group, Inc. reviews long-lived assets, including amortizable intangible assets, for impairment whenever events or changes in business circumstances indicate that the carrying amount of the assets may not be fully recoverable. Altria Group, Inc. performs undiscounted operating cash flow analyses to determine if an impairment exists. These analyses are affected by interest rates, general economic conditions and projected growth rates. For purposes of recognition and measurement of an impairment for assets held for use, Altria Group, Inc. groups assets and liabilities at the lowest level for which cash flows are separately identifiable. If an impairment is determined to exist, any related impairment loss is calculated based on fair value. Impairment losses on assets to be disposed of, if any, are based on the estimated proceeds to be received, less costs of disposal.

 

·   Leasing – Approximately 95% of PMCC’s net revenues in 2005 related to leveraged leases. Income relating to leveraged leases is recorded initially as unearned income, which is included in the line item finance assets, net, on Altria Group, Inc.’s consolidated balance sheets, and is subsequently recorded as net revenues over the life of the related leases at a constant after-tax rate of return. The remainder of PMCC’s net revenues consist primarily of amounts related to direct finance leases, with income initially recorded as unearned and subsequently recognized in net revenues over the life of the leases at a constant pre-tax rate of return. As discussed further in Note 8. Finance Assets, net , PMCC leases certain aircraft and other assets that were affected by bankruptcy filings.

 

PMCC’s investment in leases is included in the line item finance assets, net, on the consolidated balance sheets as of December 31, 2005 and 2004. At December 31, 2005, PMCC’s net finance receivable of $7.2 billion in leveraged leases, which is included in the line item on Altria Group, Inc.’s consolidated balance sheet of finance assets, net, consists of rents receivables ($25.0 billion) and the residual value of assets under lease ($1.8 billion), reduced by third-party nonrecourse debt ($16.7 billion) and unearned income ($2.9 billion). The payment of the nonrecourse debt is collateralized by lease payments receivable and the leased property, and is nonrecourse to the general assets of PMCC. As required by U.S. GAAP, the third-party nonrecourse debt has been offset against the related rents receivable and has been presented on a net basis within the line item finance assets, net, in Altria Group, Inc.’s consolidated balance sheets. Finance assets, net, at December 31, 2005, also includes net finance receivables for direct finance leases of ($0.6 billion) and an allowance for losses ($0.6 billion).

 

Estimated residual values represent PMCC’s estimate at lease inception as to the fair value of assets under lease at the end of the lease term. The estimated residual values are reviewed annually by PMCC’s management based on a number of factors and activity in the relevant industry. If necessary, revisions to reduce the residual values are recorded. Such reviews resulted in no adjustments in 2005 or 2003, and a decrease of $25 million to PMCC’s net revenues and results of operations in 2004. To the extent that lease receivables due PMCC may be uncollectible, PMCC records an allowance for losses against its finance assets. During 2005 and 2004, PMCC increased this allowance by $200 million and $140 million, respectively, in consideration of the continuing downturn in the airline industry. PMCC’s aggregate finance asset balance related to aircraft was approximately $2.1 billion at December 31, 2005. It is possible that adverse developments in the airline and other industries may require PMCC to increase its allowance for losses in future periods.

 

Consolidated Operating Results

 

See pages 39 – 40 for a discussion of Cautionary Factors That May Affect Future Results.

 

(in millions)


   2005

    2004

    2003

 

Net Revenues

                        

Domestic tobacco

   $ 18,134     $ 17,511     $ 17,001  

International tobacco

     45,288       39,536       33,389  

North American food

     23,293       22,060       20,937  

International food

     10,820       10,108       9,561  

Financial services

     319       395       432  
    


 


 


Net revenues

   $ 97,854     $ 89,610     $ 81,320  
    


 


 


(in millions)


   2005

    2004

    2003

 

Operating Income

                        

Operating companies income:

                        

Domestic tobacco

   $ 4,581     $ 4,405     $ 3,889  

International tobacco

     7,825       6,566       6,286  

North American food

     3,831       3,870       4,658  

International food

     1,122       933       1,393  

Financial services

     31       144       313  

Amortization of intangibles

     (28 )     (17 )     (9 )

General corporate expenses

     (770 )     (721 )     (771 )
    


 


 


Operating income

   $ 16,592     $ 15,180     $ 15,759  
    


 


 


 

As discussed in Note 15. Segment Reporting , management reviews operating companies income, which is defined as operating income before general corporate expenses and amortization of intangibles, to evaluate segment performance and allocate resources. Management believes it is appropriate to disclose this measure to help investors analyze the business performance and trends of the various business segments.

 

The following events that occurred during 2005, 2004 and 2003 affected the comparability of statement of earnings amounts.

 

·   Domestic Tobacco Headquarters Relocation Charges – PM USA has substantially completed the move of its corporate headquarters from New York City to Richmond, Virginia, for which pre-tax charges of $4 million, $31 million and $69 million were recorded in the operating companies income of the domestic tobacco segment for the years ended December 31, 2005, 2004 and 2003, respectively. At December 31, 2005, a liability of $6 million remains on the consolidated balance sheet.

 

21


Exhibit 13

 

 

·   Domestic Tobacco Loss on U.S. Tobacco Pool As further discussed in Note 19. Contingencies , in October 2004, FETRA was signed into law. Under the provisions of FETRA, PM USA was obligated to cover its share of potential losses that the government may incur on the disposition of pool tobacco stock accumulated under the previous tobacco price support program. In 2005, PM USA recorded a $138 million expense for its share of the loss.

 

·    Domestic Tobacco Quota Buy-Out – The provisions of FETRA require PM USA, along with other manufacturers and importers of tobacco products, to make quarterly payments that will be used to compensate tobacco growers and quota holders affected by the legislation. Payments made by PM USA under FETRA will offset amounts due under the provisions of the NTGST, a trust formerly established to compensate tobacco growers and quota holders. Disputes arose as to the applicability of FETRA to 2004 NTGST payments. During the third quarter of 2005, a North Carolina Supreme Court ruling determined that FETRA enactment had not triggered the offset provisions during 2004 and that tobacco companies were required to make full payment to the NTGST for the full year of 2004. The ruling, along with FETRA billings from the USDA, established that FETRA was effective beginning in 2005. Accordingly during the third quarter of 2005, PM USA reversed a prior year accrual for FETRA payments in the amount of $115 million.

 

·   Domestic Tobacco Legal Settlement – During 2003, PM USA and certain other defendants reached an agreement with a class of U.S. tobacco growers and quota holders to resolve a lawsuit related to tobacco leaf purchases. During 2003, PM USA recorded pre-tax charges of $202 million for its obligations under the agreement. The pre-tax charges are included in the operating companies income of the domestic tobacco segment.

 

·   International Tobacco E.C. Agreement In July 2004, PMI entered into an agreement with the E.C. and 10 member states of the European Union that provides for broad cooperation with European law enforcement agencies on anti-contraband and anti-counterfeit efforts. The agreement resolves all disputes between the parties relating to these issues. Under the terms of the agreement, PMI will make 13 payments over 12 years, including an initial payment of $250 million, which was recorded as a pre-tax charge against its earnings in 2004. The agreement calls for additional payments of approximately $150 million on the first anniversary of the agreement (this payment was made in July 2005), approximately $100 million on the second anniversary and approximately $75 million each year thereafter for 10 years, each of which is to be adjusted based on certain variables, including PMI’s market share in the European Union in the year preceding payment. Because future additional payments are subject to these variables, PMI records charges for them as an expense in cost of sales when product is shipped.

 

·   Inventory Sale in Italy During the first quarter of 2005, PMI made a one-time inventory sale of 4.0 billion units to its new distributor in Italy, resulting in a $96 million pre-tax operating companies income benefit for the international tobacco segment. During the second quarter of 2005, the new distributor reduced its inventories by approximately 1.0 billion units, resulting in lower shipments for PMI. The net impact of these actions was a benefit to PMI’s pre-tax operating companies income of approximately $70 million for the year ended December 31, 2005.

 

·   Asset Impairment and Exit Costs – For the years ended December 31, 2005, 2004 and 2003, pre-tax asset impairment and exit costs consisted of the following:

 

(in millions)


        2005

   2004

   2003

Separation program

   Domestic tobacco    $ -    $ 1    $ 13

Separation program

   International tobacco*      55      31       

Separation program

   General corporate**      49      56      26

Restructuring program

   North American food      66      383       

Restructuring program

   International food      144      200       

Asset impairment

   International tobacco*      35      13       

Asset impairment

   North American food      269      8       

Asset impairment

   International food             12      6

Asset impairment

   General corporate**             10      41

Lease termination

   General corporate**             4       
         

  

  

Asset impairment and exit costs

        $ 618    $ 718    $ 86
         

  

  


*   During 2005, PMI recorded pre-tax charges of $90 million, primarily related to the write-off of obsolete equipment, severance benefits and impairment charges associated with the closure of a factory in the Czech Republic, and the streamlining of various operations. During 2004, PMI recorded pre-tax charges of $44 million for severance benefits and impairment charges related to the closure of its Eger, Hungary facility and a factory in Belgium, and the streamlining of its Benelux operations.

 

** In 2005, 2004 and 2003, Altria Group, Inc. recorded pre-tax charges of $49 million, $70 million and $26 million, respectively, primarily related to the streamlining of various corporate functions in each year, and the write-off of an investment in an e-business consumer products purchasing exchange in 2004. In addition, during 2004, Altria Group, Inc. sold its office facility in Rye Brook, New York. In connection with this sale, Altria Group, Inc. recorded a pre-tax charge in 2003 of $41 million to write down the facility and the related fixed assets to fair value.

 

·   (Gains)/Losses on Sales of Businesses, net – During 2005, operating companies income of the international food segment included pre-tax gains on sales of businesses of $109 million, primarily related to the sale of Kraft’s desserts assets in the U.K. During 2004, Kraft sold a Brazilian snack nuts business and trademarks associated with a candy business in Norway, and recorded aggregate pre-tax losses of $3 million. During 2003, Kraft sold a European rice business and a branded fresh cheese business in Italy and recorded aggregate pre-tax gains of $31 million.

 

·    Provision for Airline Industry Exposure – As discussed in Note 8. Finance Assets, net , during 2005 PMCC increased its allowance for losses by $200 million, reflecting its exposure to the troubled airline industry, particularly Delta and Northwest, both of which filed for bankruptcy protection during September 2005. In addition, during 2004 and 2002, in recognition of the economic downturn in the airline industry, PMCC increased its allowance for losses by $140 million and $290 million, respectively.

 

22


Exhibit 13

 

 

·   Discontinued Operations – As more fully discussed in Note 4. Divestitures, in June 2005, Kraft sold substantially all of its sugar confectionery business. Altria Group, Inc. has reflected the results of Kraft’s sugar confectionery business prior to the closing date as discontinued operations on the consolidated statements of earnings for all years presented.

 

2005 compared with 2004

 

The following discussion compares consolidated operating results for the year ended December 31, 2005, with the year ended December 31, 2004.

 

Net revenues, which include excise taxes billed to customers, increased $8.2 billion (9.2%). Excluding excise taxes, net revenues increased $5.0 billion (7.7%), due primarily to increases from both the tobacco and food businesses (including the impact of acquisitions at international tobacco and the extra week of shipments at Kraft), and favorable currency.

 

Operating income increased $1.4 billion (9.3%), due primarily to higher operating results from the tobacco businesses, the favorable impact of currency, the 2004 charge for the international tobacco E.C. agreement, lower asset impairment and exit costs in 2005, primarily related to the Kraft restructuring program, gains on sales of food businesses and the reversal of a 2004 accrual related to tobacco quota buy-out legislation. These items were partially offset by an increase in the provision for airline industry exposure at PMCC, a charge for PM USA’s portion of the losses incurred by the federal government on disposition of its pool tobacco stock and lower operating results from the food and financial services businesses.

 

Currency movements increased net revenues by $2.0 billion ($1.1 billion, after excluding the impact of currency movements on excise taxes) and operating income by $421 million. Currency related increases in net revenues and operating income were due primarily to the weakness versus prior year of the U.S. dollar against the euro, Japanese yen and Central and Eastern European currencies.

 

Altria Group, Inc.’s effective tax rate decreased by 2.5 percentage points to 29.9%. The 2005 effective tax rate includes a $372 million benefit related to dividend repatriation under the Jobs Act in 2005, the reversal of $82 million of tax accruals no longer required at Kraft, as well as other benefits, including the impact of the domestic manufacturers’ deduction under the Jobs Act and lower repatriation costs. The 2004 effective tax rate includes the reversal of $355 million of tax accruals that are no longer required due to foreign tax events that were resolved during 2004 and an $81 million favorable resolution of an outstanding tax item at Kraft.

 

Minority interest in earnings from continuing operations, and equity earnings, net, was $149 million of expense for 2005, compared with $44 million of expense for 2004. The change primarily reflected ALG’s share of SABMiller’s gains from sales of investments in 2004.

 

Earnings from continuing operations of $10.7 billion increased $1.2 billion (13.2%), due primarily to higher operating income and a lower effective tax rate, partially offset by lower equity earnings from SABMiller. Diluted and basic EPS from continuing operations of $5.10 and $5.15, respectively, increased by 11.6% and 12.0%, respectively.

 

Loss from discontinued operations, net of income taxes and minority interest, was $233 million for 2005, compared with a loss of $4 million for 2004, due primarily to the recording of a loss on sale of Kraft’s sugar confectionery business in the second quarter of 2005.

 

Net earnings of $10.4 billion increased $1.0 billion (10.8%). Diluted and basic EPS from net earnings of $4.99 and $5.04, respectively, increased by 9.4% and 9.6%, respectively.

 

2004 compared with 2003

 

The following discussion compares consolidated operating results for the year ended December 31, 2004, with the year ended December 31, 2003.

 

Net revenues, which include excise taxes billed to customers, increased $8.3 billion (10.2%). Excluding excise taxes, net revenues increased $3.8 billion (6.3%), due primarily to increases from the tobacco and North American food businesses and favorable currency.

 

Operating income decreased $579 million (3.7%), due primarily to asset impairment and exit costs, primarily related to the Kraft restructuring program, the 2004 pre-tax charges for the international tobacco E.C. agreement and the provision for airline industry exposure, and lower operating results from the food businesses. These decreases were partially offset by the favorable impact of currency, 2003 pre-tax charges for the domestic tobacco legal settlement and higher operating results from the tobacco businesses.

 

Currency movements increased net revenues by $3.3 billion ($1.9 billion, after excluding the impact of currency movements on excise taxes) and operating income by $638 million. Increases in net revenues and operating income were due primarily to the weakness versus prior year of the U.S. dollar, primarily against the euro, Japanese yen and Russian ruble.

 

Altria Group, Inc.’s effective tax rate decreased by 2.5 percentage points to 32.4%. This decrease was due primarily to the reversal of $355 million of tax accruals that are no longer required due to foreign tax events that were resolved during the year and the $81 million favorable resolution of an outstanding tax item at Kraft.

 

Minority interest in earnings from continuing operations, and equity earnings, net, was $44 million of expense for 2004, compared with $391 million of expense for 2003. The change from 2003 was due to lower 2004 net earnings at Kraft and higher equity earnings from SABMiller, which included $111 million of gains from the sales of investments.

 

Earnings from continuing operations of $9.4 billion increased $299 million (3.3%), due primarily to the favorable impact of currency, a lower effective tax rate, 2003 pre-tax charges for the domestic tobacco legal settlement, higher equity earnings from SABMiller and higher operating income from the tobacco businesses, partially offset by the 2004 pre-tax charges for asset impairment and exit costs, primarily related to the Kraft restructuring program, the international tobacco E.C. agreement and a provision for airline industry exposure, and lower operating income from the food businesses. Diluted and basic EPS from continuing operations of $4.57 and $4.60, respectively, increased by 2.0% and 2.2%, respectively.

 

(Loss) earnings from discontinued operations, net of income taxes and minority interest, was a loss of $4 million for 2004 compared to earnings of $83 million for 2003, due primarily to a pre-tax non-cash asset impairment charge of $107 million in 2004.

 

Net earnings of $9.4 billion increased $212 million (2.3%). Diluted and basic EPS from net earnings of $4.56 and $4.60, respectively, increased by 0.9% and 1.3%, respectively.

 

23


Exhibit 13

 

 

Operating Results by Business Segment

 

Tobacco

 

Business Environment

 

Taxes, Legislation, Regulation and Other Matters Regarding Tobacco and Smoking

 

The tobacco industry, both in the United States and abroad, faces a number of challenges that may continue to adversely affect the business, volume, results of operations, cash flows and financial position of PM USA, PMI and ALG. These challenges, which are discussed below and in Cautionary Factors That May Affect Future Results , include:

 

    the civil lawsuit, filed by the United States government against various cigarette manufacturers and others, including PM USA and ALG, discussed in Note 19. Contingencies (“Note 19”);

 

    a $74 billion punitive damages judgment against PM USA in the Engle smoking and health class action, which has been overturned by a Florida district court of appeal and is currently on appeal to the Florida Supreme Court;

 

    a compensatory and punitive damages judgment totaling approximately $10.1 billion against PM USA in the Price Lights/Ultra Lights class action. The Illinois Supreme Court has reversed the trial court’s judgment in favor of the plaintiffs in the Price case and remanded the case to the trial court with instructions that the case be dismissed. However, plaintiffs have filed a motion for rehearing with the Illinois Supreme Court;

 

    punitive damages verdicts against PM USA in other smoking and health cases discussed in Note 19;

 

    pending and threatened litigation and bonding requirements as discussed in Note 19;

 

    competitive disadvantages related to price increases in the United States attributable to the settlement of certain tobacco litigation;

 

    actual and proposed excise tax increases worldwide as well as changes in tax structures in foreign markets;

 

    the sale of counterfeit cigarettes by third parties;

 

    the sale of cigarettes by third parties over the Internet and by other means designed to avoid the collection of applicable taxes;

 

    price gaps and changes in price gaps between premium and lowest price brands;

 

    diversion into one market of products intended for sale in another;

 

    the outcome of proceedings and investigations, and the potential assertion of claims, relating to contraband shipments of cigarettes;

 

    governmental investigations;

 

    actual and proposed requirements regarding the use and disclosure of cigarette ingredients and other proprietary information;

 

    actual and proposed restrictions on imports in certain jurisdictions outside the United States;

 

    actual and proposed restrictions affecting tobacco manufacturing, marketing, advertising and sales;

 

    governmental and private bans and restrictions on smoking;

 

    the diminishing prevalence of smoking and increased efforts by tobacco control advocates to further restrict smoking;

 

    governmental regulations setting ignition propensity standards for cigarettes; and

 

    other actual and proposed tobacco legislation both inside and outside the United States.

 

In the ordinary course of business, PM USA and PMI are subject to many influences that can impact the timing of sales to customers, including the timing of holidays and other annual or special events, the timing of promotions, customer incentive programs and customer inventory programs, as well as the actual or speculated timing of pricing actions and tax-driven price increases.

 

·   Excise Taxes: Cigarettes are subject to substantial excise taxes in the United States and to substantial taxation abroad. Significant increases in cigarette-related taxes or fees have been proposed or enacted and are likely to continue to be proposed or enacted within the United States, the European Union (the “EU”) and in other foreign jurisdictions. In addition, in certain jurisdictions, PMI’s products are subject to discriminatory tax structures and inconsistent rulings and interpretations on complex methodologies to determine excise and other tax burdens.

 

Tax increases are expected to continue to have an adverse impact on sales of cigarettes by PM USA and PMI, due to lower consumption levels and to a shift in consumer purchases from the premium to the non-premium or discount segments or to other low-priced or low-taxed tobacco products or to counterfeit and contraband products.

 

·   Tar and Nicotine Test Methods and Brand Descriptors: A number of governments and public health organizations throughout the world have determined that the existing standardized machine-based methods for measuring tar and nicotine yields do not provide useful information about tar and nicotine deliveries and that such results are misleading to smokers. For example, in the 2001 publication of Monograph 13, the U.S. National Cancer Institute (“NCI”) concluded that measurements based on the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) standardized method “do not offer smokers meaningful information on the amount of tar and nicotine they will receive from a cigarette” or “on the relative amounts of tar and nicotine exposure likely to be received from smoking different brands of cigarettes.” Thereafter, the FTC issued a press release indicating that it would be working with the NCI to determine what changes should be made to its testing method to “correct the limitations” identified in Monograph 13. In 2002, PM USA petitioned the FTC to promulgate new rules governing the use of existing standardized machine-based methodologies for measuring tar and nicotine yields and descriptors. That petition remains pending. In addition, the World Health Organization (“WHO”) has concluded that these standardized measurements are “seriously flawed” and that measurements based upon the current standardized methodology “are misleading and should not be displayed.” The International Organization for Standardization (“ISO”) has set up a working group, chaired by the WHO, to develop a new measurement method which more accurately reflects human smoking behavior. The working group is scheduled to report to ISO in mid-2006.

 

24


Exhibit 13

 

 

In light of these conclusions, governments and public health organizations have increasingly challenged the use of descriptors — such as “light,” “mild,” and “low tar” — that are based on measurements produced by the standardized test methodologies. For example, the European Commission has concluded that descriptors based on standardized tar and nicotine yield measurements “may mislead the consumer” and has prohibited the use of descriptors. Public health organizations have also urged that descriptors be banned. For example, the Scientific Advisory Committee of the WHO concluded that descriptors such as “light, ultra-light, mild and low tar” are “misleading terms” and should be banned. In 2003, the WHO proposed the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (“FCTC”), a treaty that requires signatory nations to adopt and implement measures to ensure that descriptive terms do not create “the false impression that a particular tobacco product is less harmful than other tobacco products.” Such terms “may include ‘low tar,’ ‘light,’ ‘ultra-light,’ or ‘mild.’” For a discussion of the FCTC, see below under the heading “The WHO’s Framework Convention on Tobacco Control.” In addition, public health organizations in Canada and the United States have advocated “a complete prohibition of the use of deceptive descriptors such as ‘light’ and ‘mild.’” In July 2005, PMI’s Australian affiliates agreed to refrain from using descriptors in Australia on cigarettes, cigarette packaging and on material intended to be disseminated to the general public in Australia in relation to the marketing, advertising or sale of cigarettes.

 

See Note 19, which describes pending litigation concerning the use of brand descriptors.

 

·   Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) Regulations: ALG and PM USA endorsed federal legislation introduced in May 2004 in the Senate and the House of Representatives, known as the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act, which would have granted the FDA the authority to regulate the design, manufacture and marketing of cigarettes and disclosures of related information. The legislation also would have granted the FDA the authority to combat counterfeit and contraband tobacco products and would have imposed fees to pay for the cost of regulation and other matters. The legislation was passed by the Senate, but Congress adjourned in October 2004 without enacting it. In March 2005, bipartisan legislation was reintroduced in the Senate and House of Representatives that, if enacted, would grant the FDA the authority to broadly regulate tobacco products as described above. ALG and PM USA support this legislation. Whether Congress will grant the FDA authority over tobacco products in the future cannot be predicted.

 

·   Tobacco Quota Buy-Out: In October 2004, the Fair and Equitable Tobacco Reform Act of 2004 (“FETRA”) was signed into law. FETRA provides for the elimination of the federal tobacco quota and price support program through an industry-funded buy-out of tobacco growers and quota holders. The cost of the buy-out is approximately $9.6 billion and will be paid over 10 years by manufacturers and importers of each kind of tobacco product. The cost will be allocated based on the relative market shares of manufacturers and importers of each kind of tobacco product. The quota buy-out payments will offset already scheduled payments to the National Tobacco Grower Settlement Trust (the “NTGST”), a trust fund established in 1999 by four of the major domestic tobacco product manufacturers to provide aid to tobacco growers and quota holders. Manufacturers and importers of tobacco products are also obligated to cover any losses (up to $500 million) that the government may incur on the disposition of tobacco pool stock accumulated under the previous tobacco price support program. In September and December 2005, PM USA was billed a total of $138 million for its share of tobacco pool stock losses and recorded the amount as an expense. For a discussion of the NTGST, see Note 19. Altria Group, Inc. does not currently anticipate that the quota buy-out will have a material adverse impact on its consolidated results in 2006 and beyond.

 

Following the enactment of FETRA, the trustee of the NTGST and the state entities conveying NTGST payments to tobacco growers and quota holders sued tobacco product manufacturers, alleging that the offset provisions did not apply to payments due in 2004. In December 2004, a North Carolina trial court ruled that FETRA’s enactment had triggered the offset provisions and that the tobacco product manufacturers, including PM USA, were entitled to receive a refund of amounts paid to the NTGST during the first three quarters of 2004 and were not required to make the payments that would otherwise have been due during the fourth quarter of 2004. Plaintiffs appealed, and in August 2005, the North Carolina Supreme Court reversed the trial court’s ruling and remanded the case to the lower court for additional proceedings. In October 2005, the trial court ordered that the trustee could distribute the amounts that the tobacco companies had already paid to the NTGST during the first three quarters of 2004. PM USA’s portion of these payments was approximately $174 million. The trial court also ruled that the manufacturers must make the payment originally scheduled to be made to the NTGST in December 2004, with interest. PM USA’s portion of the principal was approximately $58 million, which PM USA paid in October 2005. In November 2005, PM USA paid $2 million in interest on the December 2004 payment.

 

·   Ingredient Disclosure Laws: Jurisdictions inside and outside the United States have enacted or proposed legislation or regulations that would require cigarette manufacturers to disclose the ingredients used in the manufacture of cigarettes and, in certain cases, to provide toxicological information. In some jurisdictions, governments have prohibited the use of certain ingredients, and proposals have been discussed to further prohibit the use of ingredients. Under an EU tobacco product directive, tobacco companies are now required to disclose ingredients and toxicological information to each Member State. In implementing the EU tobacco product directive, the Netherlands has issued a decree that would require tobacco companies to disclose the ingredients used in each brand of cigarettes, including quantities used. PMI and others are challenging this decree on the grounds of a lack of appropriate protection of proprietary information. Concurrently, PMI is discussing with the relevant authorities the appropriate implementation of the EU tobacco product directive.

 

·   Health Effects of Smoking and Exposure to Environmental Tobacco Smoke (“ETS”): Reports with respect to the health risks of cigarette smoking have been publicized for many years, and the sale, promotion, and use of cigarettes continue to be subject to increasing governmental regulation. Most regulation of ETS exposure to date has been done at the local level through bans in public establishments. However, the state of California is in the process of regulating ETS exposure in the ambient air at the state level. In January 2006, the California Air Resources Board (“CARB”) listed ETS as a toxic contaminant under state law. CARB is now required to consider the adoption of appropriate control measures utilizing “best available control technology” in order to reduce public exposure to ETS in outdoor air to the “lowest level achievable.”

 

It is the policy of PM USA and PMI to support a single, consistent public health message on the health effects of cigarette smoking in the development of diseases in smokers, and on smoking and addiction, and on exposure to ETS. It is also their policy to defer to the judgment of public health authorities as to the content of warnings in advertisements and on product packaging regarding the health effects of smoking, addiction and exposure to ETS.

 

PM USA and PMI each have established websites that include, among other things, the views of public health authorities on smoking, disease

 

25


Exhibit 13

 

 

causation in smokers, addiction and ETS. These sites reflect PM USA’s and PMI’s agreement with the medical and scientific consensus that cigarette smoking is addictive, and causes lung cancer, heart disease, emphysema and other serious diseases in smokers. The websites advise smokers, and those considering smoking, to rely on the messages of public health authorities in making all smoking-related decisions. The website addresses are www.philipmorrisusa.com and www.philipmorrisinternational.com. The information on PMI’s and PM USA’s websites is not, and shall not be deemed to be, a part of this document or incorporated into any filings ALG makes with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

 

·   The WHO’s Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (“FCTC”): The FCTC entered into force on February 27, 2005. As of December 31, 2005, the FCTC had been signed by 168 countries and the EU, ratified by 115 countries and confirmed by the EU. The FCTC is the first treaty to establish a global agenda for tobacco regulation. The treaty recommends (and in certain instances, requires) signatory nations to enact legislation that would, among other things, establish specific actions to prevent youth smoking; restrict and gradually eliminate tobacco product advertising and promotion; inform the public about the health consequences of smoking and the benefits of quitting; regulate the ingredients of tobacco products; impose new package warning requirements that may include the use of pictures or graphic images; adopt measures that would eliminate cigarette smuggling and counterfeit cigarettes; restrict smoking in public places; increase cigarette taxes; adopt and implement measures that ensure that descriptive terms do not create the false impression that one brand of cigarettes is safer than another; phase out duty-free tobacco sales; and encourage litigation against tobacco product manufacturers.

 

Each country that ratifies the treaty must implement legislation reflecting the treaty’s provisions and principles. While not agreeing with all of the provisions of the treaty, such as a complete ban on tobacco advertising, excessive excise tax increases and regulation through litigation, PM USA and PMI have expressed hope that the treaty will lead to the implementation of meaningful, effective and coherent regulation of tobacco products around the world.

 

·   Reduced Cigarette Ignition Propensity Legislation: Effective June 28, 2004, all cigarettes sold or offered for sale in New York are required to meet certain reduced ignition propensity standards established in regulations issued by the New York State Office of Fire Prevention and Control. California and Vermont have each enacted legislation requiring cigarettes sold in their state to meet the same reduced cigarette ignition propensity standard. The Vermont law takes effect on May 1, 2006 and the California law is effective on January 1, 2007. Reduced cigarette ignition propensity legislation is being considered in several states, at the federal level, and in jurisdictions outside the United States. Similar legislation has been passed in Canada and took effect on October 1, 2005.

 

·   Other Legislation and Legislative Initiatives: Legislative and regulatory initiatives affecting the tobacco industry have been adopted or are being considered in a number of countries and jurisdictions. In 2001, the EU adopted a directive on tobacco product regulation requiring EU Member States to implement regulations that reduce maximum permitted levels of tar, nicotine and carbon monoxide yields; require manufacturers to disclose ingredients and toxicological data; and require cigarette packs to carry health warnings covering no less than 30% of the front panel and no less than 40% of the back panel. The directive also gives Member States the option of introducing graphic warnings as of 2005; requires tar, nicotine and carbon monoxide data to cover at least 10% of the side panel; and prohibits the use of texts, names, trademarks and figurative or other signs suggesting that a particular tobacco product is less harmful than others.

 

All 25 EU Member States have implemented these regulations. The European Commission has issued guidelines for optional graphic warnings on cigarette packaging that Member States may apply as of 2005. Graphic warning requirements have also been proposed or adopted in a number of other jurisdictions. In 2003, the EU adopted a new directive prohibiting radio, press and Internet tobacco marketing and advertising, which has now been implemented in most EU Member States. Tobacco control legislation addressing the manufacture, marketing and sale of tobacco products has been proposed or adopted in numerous other jurisdictions.

 

In the United States in recent years, various members of federal and state governments have introduced legislation that would: subject cigarettes to various regulations; establish educational campaigns relating to tobacco consumption or tobacco control programs, or provide additional funding for governmental tobacco control activities; further restrict the advertising of cigarettes; require additional warnings, including graphic warnings, on packages and in advertising; eliminate or reduce the tax deductibility of tobacco advertising; provide that the Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act and the Smoking Education Act not be used as a defense against liability under state statutory or common law; and allow state and local governments to restrict the sale and distribution of cigarettes.

 

It is not possible to predict what, if any, additional governmental legislation or regulations will be adopted relating to the manufacturing, advertising, sale or use of cigarettes, or the tobacco industry generally. If, however, any of the proposals were to be implemented, the business, volume, results of operations, cash flows and financial position of PM USA, PMI and their parent, ALG, could be materially adversely affected.

 

·   Governmental Investigations: From time to time, ALG and its subsidiaries are subject to governmental investigations on a range of matters, including those discussed below.

 

•     Canada:

   ALG believes that Canadian authorities are contemplating a legal proceeding based on an investigation of ALG entities relating to allegations of contraband shipments of cigarettes into Canada in the early to mid-1990s.

•     Greece:

   In 2003, the competition authorities in Greece initiated an investigation into cigarette price increases in that market. PMI’s Greek affiliates have responded to the authorities’ request for information.

 

ALG and its subsidiaries cannot predict the outcome of these investigations or whether additional investigations may be commenced.

 

·    Cooperation Agreement between PMI and the European Commission: In July 2004, PMI entered into an agreement with the European Commission (acting on behalf of the European Community) and 10 Member States of the EU that provides for broad cooperation with European law enforcement agencies on anti-contraband and anti-counterfeit efforts. Subsequently, 8 additional Member States have signed the agreement. The agreement resolves all disputes between the European Community and the 18 Member States that signed the agreement, on the one hand, and PMI and certain affiliates, on the other hand, relating to these issues. Under the terms of the agreement, PMI will make 13 payments over 12 years. In the second quarter of 2004, PMI recorded a pre-tax charge of $250 million for the initial payment. The agreement calls for payments of approximately $150 million on the first anniversary of the

 

26


Exhibit 13

 

 

agreement (this payment was made in July 2005), approximately $100 million on the second anniversary, and approximately $75 million each year thereafter for 10 years, each of which is to be adjusted based on certain variables, including PMI’s market share in the EU in the year preceding payment. PMI will record these payments as an expense in cost of sales when product is shipped.

 

·   State Settlement Agreements: As discussed in Note 19, during 1997 and 1998, PM USA and other major domestic tobacco product manufacturers entered into agreements with states and various United States jurisdictions settling asserted and unasserted health care cost recovery and other claims. These settlements require PM USA to make substantial annual payments. The settlements also place numerous restrictions on PM USA’s business operations, including prohibitions and restrictions on the advertising and marketing of cigarettes. Among these are prohibitions of outdoor and transit brand advertising; payments for product placement; and free sampling (except in adult-only facilities). Restrictions are also placed on the use of brand name sponsorships and brand name non-tobacco products. The State Settlement Agreements also place prohibitions on targeting youth and the use of cartoon characters. In addition, the State Settlement Agreements require companies to affirm corporate principles directed at reducing underage use of cigarettes; impose requirements regarding lobbying activities; mandate public disclosure of certain industry documents; limit the industry’s ability to challenge certain tobacco control and underage use laws; and provide for the dissolution of certain tobacco-related organizations and place restrictions on the establishment of any replacement organizations.

 

Operating Results

 

     Net Revenues

   Operating Companies Income

(in millions)        


   2005

   2004

   2003

   2005

   2004

   2003

Domestic tobacco

   $ 18,134    $ 17,511    $ 17,001    $ 4,581    $ 4,405    $ 3,889

International tobacco

     45,288      39,536      33,389      7,825      6,566      6,286
    

  

  

  

  

  

Total tobacco

   $ 63,422    $ 57,047    $ 50,390    $ 12,406    $ 10,971    $ 10,175
    

  

  

  

  

  

 

2005 compared with 2004

 

The following discussion compares tobacco operating results for 2005 with 2004.

 

·   Domestic tobacco: PM USA’s net revenues, which include excise taxes billed to customers, increased $623 million (3.6%). Excluding excise taxes, net revenues increased $658 million (4.8%), due primarily to lower wholesale promotional allowance rates ($837 million), partially offset by lower volume ($189 million).

 

Operating companies income increased $176 million (4.0%), due primarily to the previously discussed lower wholesale promotional allowance rates, net of expenses related to the quota buy-out legislation and ongoing resolution costs (aggregating $419 million), the reversal of a 2004 accrual related to tobacco quota buy-out legislation ($115 million), and lower charges for the domestic tobacco headquarters relocation ($27 million), partially offset by a charge for PM USA’s portion of the losses incurred by the federal government on disposition of its pool tobacco stock ($138 million), lower volume ($137 million) and higher marketing, administration and research costs ($133 million, due primarily to a pre-tax provision of $56 million for the Boeken individual smoking case, and an increase in research and development expenses).

 

Marketing, administration and research costs include PM USA’s cost of administering and litigating product liability claims. Litigation defense costs are influenced by a number of factors, as more fully discussed in Note 19. Principal among these factors are the number and types of cases filed, the number of cases tried annually, the results of trials and appeals, the development of the law controlling relevant legal issues, and litigation strategy and tactics. For the years ended December 31, 2005, 2004 and 2003, product liability defense costs were $258 million, $268 million and $307 million, respectively. The factors that have influenced past product liability defense costs are expected to continue to influence future costs. While PM USA does not expect that product liability defense costs will increase significantly in the future, it is possible that adverse developments among the factors discussed above could have a material adverse effect on PM USA’s operating companies income.

 

PM USA’s shipment volume was 185.5 billion units, a decrease of 0.8%, but was estimated to be essentially flat when adjusted for the timing of promotional shipments and trade inventory changes, and two less shipping days versus 2004. In the premium segment, PM USA’s shipment volume decreased 0.6%. Marlboro shipment volume increased 0.1 billion units (0.1%) to 150.5 billion units. In the discount segment, PM USA’s shipment volume decreased 3.2%, while Basic shipment volume was down 2.7% to 15.2 billion units.

 

The following table summarizes PM USA’s retail share performance, based on data from the IRI/Capstone Total Retail Panel, which was developed to measure market share in retail stores selling cigarettes, but was not designed to capture Internet or direct mail sales:

 

For the Years Ended December 31,


   2005

    2004

 

Marlboro

   40.0 %   39.5 %

Parliament

   1.7     1.7  

Virginia Slims

   2.3     2.4  

Basic

   4.3     4.2  
    

 

Focus on Four Brands

   48.3     47.8  

Other

   1.7     2.0  
    

 

Total PM USA

   50.0 %   49.8 %
    

 

 

PM USA reduced its wholesale promotional allowance on its Focus on Four brands by $0.50 per carton, from $5.50 to $5.00, effective December 19, 2005. In addition, effective December 27, 2005, PM USA increased the price of its other brands by $2.50 per thousand cigarettes or $0.50 per carton.

 

PM USA reduced its wholesale promotional allowance on its Focus on Four brands by $1.00 per carton, from $6.50 to $5.50, effective December 12, 2004. In addition, effective January 16, 2005, PM USA increased the price of its other brands by $5.00 per thousand cigarettes or $1.00 per carton.

 

In April 2005, PM USA announced the construction of a research and technology center in Richmond, Virginia, which is estimated to cost $350 million. When completed in 2007, the facility will nearly double PM USA’s research space and will house more than 500 scientists, engineers and support staff.

 

PM USA cannot predict future changes or rates of change in domestic tobacco industry volume, the relative sizes of the premium and discount segments or its shipment or retail market share; however, it believes that its results may be materially adversely affected by price increases related to increased excise taxes and tobacco litigation settlements, as well as by the other items discussed under the caption Tobacco – Business Environment .

 

·   International tobacco: International tobacco net revenues, which include excise taxes billed to customers, increased $5.8 billion (14.5%). Excluding excise taxes, net revenues increased $2.4 billion (13.8%), due primarily to

 

27


Exhibit 13

 

 

price increases ($1.0 billion), the impact of acquisitions ($796 million) and favorable currency ($576 million).

 

Operating companies income increased $1.3 billion (19.2%), due primarily to price increases ($1.0 billion, including the benefit from the return of the Marlboro license in Japan), favorable currency ($331 million), the 2004 charge related to the international tobacco E.C. agreement ($250 million) and the impact of acquisitions ($341 million, which includes Sampoerna equity income earned from March to May of 2005), partially offset by higher marketing, administration and research costs ($246 million, due primarily to higher marketing, and research and development expenses), unfavorable volume/mix ($198 million, reflecting favorable volume but unfavorable mix), expenses related to the international tobacco E.C. agreement ($61 million), higher fixed manufacturing costs ($63 million) and higher pre-tax charges for asset impairment and exit costs ($46 million).

 

During the third quarter of 2005, PMI refined its organizational structure to bring greater focus to the enlarged European Union and the Asia region. Accordingly, in place of Western Europe and Central Europe regions, PMI now reports results for a European Union region, which includes the original European Union countries and the Baltic States, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Hungary, Malta, Norway, Poland, Slovak Republic and Switzerland. Other regions remain essentially unchanged. The region commentary throughout PMI’s section of this Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations reflects the revised organizational structure, with prior-year results restated for comparability.

 

PMI’s cigarette volume of 804.5 billion units increased 43.1 billion units (5.7%), due primarily to acquisition volumes in Indonesia and Colombia, and higher volume in Italy as a result of the one-time inventory sale to PMI’s new distributor. Excluding the volume related to acquisitions and the one-time inventory sale to the new distributor in Italy, shipments increased 0.3%. PMI’s total tobacco volume, which includes 7.1 billion cigarette equivalent units of other tobacco products, grew 6.1% overall, and 0.8% excluding acquisitions and the one-time inventory sale to the new distributor in Italy.

 

In the European Union, PMI’s cigarette volume decreased 2.7%, due primarily to declines in Germany, Portugal, Switzerland and Spain, partially offset by the 2005 inventory sale in Italy and higher shipments in France. Excluding the inventory sale in Italy, PMI’s volume decreased 3.8% in the European Union.

 

In Germany, PMI’s cigarette volume declined 15.9% and market share was down 0.2 share points to 36.6%, reflecting tax-driven price increases in March and December 2004, which accelerated down-trading to low-priced tobacco portions that currently are subject to favorable excise tax treatment compared with cigarettes. PMI captured a 16.9% share of the German tobacco portions segment, driven by Marlboro, Next, and f6 tobacco portions. During the fourth quarter of 2005, the European Court of Justice issued a mandate that requires the German government to equalize the tax burden between cigarettes and tobacco portions. As a result of this ruling, tobacco portions in Germany will be taxed at the same rate as cigarettes for products manufactured as of April 1, 2006. Nevertheless, lower-priced tobacco portions are expected to remain available at retail for some time due to anticipated high stock levels.

 

In Spain, PMI’s shipment volume decreased 2.2%, reflecting increased consumer down-trading to the deep-discount segment. As a result of growing price gaps, PMI’s market share in Spain declined 1.1 share points to 34.5%, with a pronounced product mix deterioration. On January 21, 2006, the Spanish government raised excise taxes on cigarettes, which would have resulted in even larger price gaps if the tax increase had been passed on to consumers. Accordingly, PMI reduced its cigarette prices on January 26, 2006 to restore the competitiveness of its brands. PMI expects that the price reduction will significantly reduce its income in Spain in 2006. Late in February the Spanish government again raised the level of excise taxes, but also established a minimum excise tax, following which PMI raised its prices back to prior levels. While the introduction of a minimum excise tax effectively raises the floor price of the cheapest brands, it still permits these brands to maintain sizeable price gaps. Accordingly, PMI must await further developments before being able to make a more accurate assessment of its 2006 volume and income projections from the Spanish market.

 

In Italy, the total cigarette market declined 6.1% in 2005, largely reflecting tax-driven pricing and the impact of indoor smoking restrictions in public places. PMI’s shipment volume in Italy increased 2.7%, mainly reflecting the one-time inventory sale to its new distributor. Excluding the one-time inventory sale, cigarette shipment volume in Italy declined 3.2%. However, market share in Italy increased 1.1 share points to 52.6%, driven by Diana .

 

In France, shipment volume increased 2.5% and market share increased 1.9 share points to 41.7%, reflecting the strong performance of Marlboro and the Philip Morris brands.

 

In Eastern Europe, Middle East and Africa, volume increased 6.4%, due to gains in Egypt, Russia, North Africa, Turkey and Ukraine. Higher shipments in Ukraine and Egypt reflect improved economic conditions. In Turkey, shipment volume increased 8.6% and market share increased 4.4 points to 41.4%, fueled by the growth of Marlboro, Parliament, Lark and Bond Street.

 

In Asia, volume increased 21.3%, due primarily to the acquisition in Indonesia, the strong performance of Marlboro in the Philippines and L&M growth in Thailand, partially offset by lower volumes in Korea and Japan. Excluding the acquisition in Indonesia, volume in Asia was essentially flat.

 

In Latin America, volume increased 5.5%, due primarily to the acquisition in Colombia, and higher shipments in Mexico, partially offset by declines in Argentina and Brazil. Excluding the acquisition in Colombia, volume in Latin America declined 3.8%.

 

PMI achieved market share gains in a number of important markets, including Egypt, France, Italy, Japan, Korea, Mexico, the Netherlands, the Philippines, Russia, Thailand, Turkey, Ukraine and the United Kingdom. In addition, in Indonesia, Sampoerna’s share in 2005 was significantly higher than the prior year.

 

Volume for Marlboro cigarettes grew 2.0%, due primarily to gains in Eastern Europe, the Middle East and Africa, higher inventories in Japan following the return of the Marlboro license in May 2005, and the one-time inventory sale in Italy, partially offset by lower volumes in Germany and worldwide duty-free. Excluding the one-time gains in Italy and Japan, Marlboro cigarette volume was essentially flat. Marlboro market share increased in many important markets, including Egypt, France, Japan, Mexico, Portugal, Russia, Turkey, Ukraine and the United Kingdom.

 

As discussed in Note 5. Acquisitions , during 2005, PMI acquired 98% of the outstanding shares of Sampoerna, an Indonesian tobacco company, and a 98.2% stake in Coltabaco, the largest tobacco company in Colombia.

 

During 2004, PMI purchased a tobacco business in Finland for a cost of approximately $42 million. During 2004, PMI also increased its ownership interest in a tobacco business in Serbia from 74.2% to 85.2%.

 

PMI’s license agreement with Japan Tobacco Inc. for the manufacture and sale of Marlboro cigarettes in Japan was not renewed when the agreement expired in April 2005. PMI has undertaken the manufacture and merchandising of Marlboro and has expanded its field force and vending machine infrastructure in Japan.

 

In December 2005, the China National Tobacco Corporation (“CNTC”) and PMI reached agreement on the licensed production in China of Marlboro

 

28


Exhibit 13

 

 

and the establishment of an international joint venture between China National Tobacco Import and Export Group Corporation (“CNTIEGC”), a wholly owned subsidiary of CNTC, and PMI. PMI and CNTIEGC will each hold 50% of the shares of the joint venture company, which will be based in Lausanne, Switzerland. Following its establishment, the joint venture company will offer consumers a comprehensive portfolio of Chinese heritage brands globally, expand the export of tobacco products and tobacco materials from China, and explore other business development opportunities. It is expected that the production and sale of Marlboro cigarettes under license in China and the sale of Chinese style brands in selected international markets through the joint venture company will commence in the first half of 2006. The agreements will not result in a material impact on PMI’s financial results.

 

2004 compared with 2003

 

The following discussion compares tobacco operating results for 2004 with 2003.

 

·   Domestic tobacco: PM USA’s net revenues, which include excise taxes billed to customers, increased $510 million (3.0%). Excluding excise taxes, net revenues increased $514 million (3.9%), due primarily to savings resulting from changes to the 2004 trade programs, including PM USA’s returned goods policy and lower Wholesale Leaders program discounts.

 

Operating companies income increased $516 million (13.3%), due primarily to savings resulting from changes to trade programs in 2004, including PM USA’s returned goods policy and lower Wholesale Leaders program discounts, net of increased costs including the State Settlement Agreements (aggregating $197 million), the 2003 pre-tax charges for the domestic tobacco legal settlement ($202 million), lower marketing, administration and research costs ($67 million), lower pre-tax charges for the domestic tobacco headquarters relocation ($38 million) and lower asset impairment and exit costs ($12 million).

 

PM USA’s shipment volume was 187.1 billion units, a decrease of 0.1%. In the premium segment, PM USA’s shipment volume increased 0.1%, as gains in Marlboro were essentially offset by declines in other premium brands. Marlboro shipment volume increased 2.5 billion units (1.7%) to 150.4 billion units with gains across the brand portfolio and the introduction of Marlboro Menthol 72mm. In the discount segment, PM USA’s shipment volume decreased 1.9%, while Basic shipment volume was down 0.7% to 15.6 billion units.

 

The following table summarizes PM USA’s retail share performance, based on data from the IRI/Capstone Total Retail Panel, which was developed to measure market share in retail stores selling cigarettes, but was not designed to capture Internet or direct mail sales:

 

For the Years Ended December 31,


   2004

    2003

 

Marlboro

   39.5 %   38.0 %

Parliament

   1.7     1.7  

Virginia Slims

   2.4     2.4  

Basic

   4.2     4.2  
    

 

Focus on Four Brands

   47.8     46.3  

Other

   2.0     2.4  
    

 

Total PM USA

   49.8 %   48.7 %
    

 

 

·   International tobacco: International tobacco net revenues, which include excise taxes billed to customers, increased $6.1 billion (18.4%). Excluding excise taxes, net revenues increased $1.6 billion (10.2%), due primarily to favorable currency ($1.0 billion), price increases ($538 million) and the impact of acquisitions ($285 million), partially offset by lower volume/mix ($300 million), reflecting lower volume in France, Germany and Italy.

 

Operating companies income increased $280 million (4.5%), due primarily to favorable currency ($540 million), price increases ($538 million) and the impact of acquisitions ($71 million), partially offset by higher marketing, administration and research costs ($373 million), the 2004 pre-tax charges for the international tobacco E.C. agreement ($250 million), unfavorable volume/mix ($201 million), reflecting lower volume in the higher-margin markets of France, Germany and Italy, and asset impairment and exit costs for the closures of facilities in Hungary and Belgium, as well as the streamlining of PMI’s Benelux operations ($44 million).

 

PMI’s cigarette volume of 761.4 billion units increased 25.6 billion units (3.5%), due primarily to incremental volume from acquisitions made during 2003. Excluding acquisition volume, shipments increased 9.1 billion units (1.2%).

 

In the European Union, PMI’s cigarette volume declined 4.8%, due primarily to decreases in France, Germany and Italy, partially offset by higher volume in Poland and an acquisition in Greece. Shipment volume decreased 19.5% in France, due to tax-driven price increases since January 1, 2003, that continued to drive an overall market decline. PMI’s market share in France increased 0.7 share points to 39.9%. In Italy, volume decreased 6.4% and market share fell 2.6 share points to 51.5%, as PMI’s brands were adversely impacted by low-price competitive brands and a lower total market. In Germany, volume declined, reflecting a lower total cigarette market due mainly to tax-driven price increases and the resultant consumer shifts to low-price tobacco products, particularly tobacco portions which benefit from lower excise taxes than cigarettes. PMI entered the tobacco portions market during the second quarter of 2004 with the Marlboro and Next brands.

 

In Eastern Europe, Middle East and Africa, volume increased due to gains in Kazakhstan, Romania, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Ukraine, and an acquisition in Serbia. In worldwide duty-free, volume increased, reflecting the global recovery in travel and a favorable comparison to the prior year, which was depressed by the effects of SARS and the Iraq war.

 

In Asia, volume grew, due primarily to increases in Korea, Malaysia, Thailand and the Philippines. In Japan, PMI’s volume was up slightly, while the total market was down due to the adverse impact of the July 2003 tax-driven retail price increase and a lower incidence of smoking.

 

In Latin America, volume decreased, driven mainly by declines in Argentina, partially offset by an increase in Mexico.

 

PMI achieved market share gains in a number of important markets, including Austria, Belgium, Egypt, France, Greece, Japan, Mexico, the Netherlands, Poland, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Spain, Turkey and Ukraine.

 

Volume for Marlboro declined 1.3%, as lower volume in the European Union, mainly France and Germany, was partially offset by gains in Eastern Europe, Middle East and Africa, and Asia. Marlboro market share increased in many important markets, including Argentina, Belgium, Japan, Mexico, Poland, Portugal, Russia, Spain, Turkey, Ukraine and the United Kingdom.

 

During 2004, PMI purchased a tobacco business in Finland for a cost of approximately $42 million. During 2003, PMI purchased approximately 74.2% of a tobacco business in Serbia for a cost of approximately $486 million, and in 2004, PMI increased its ownership interest to 85.2%. During 2003, PMI also purchased 99% of a tobacco business in Greece for approximately $387 million and increased its ownership interest in its affiliate in Ecuador from less than 50% to approximately 98% for a cost of $70 million.

 

29


Exhibit 13

 

 

Food

 

Business Environment

 

Kraft manufactures and markets packaged food products, consisting principally of beverages, cheese, snacks, convenient meals and various packaged grocery products. Kraft manages and reports operating results through two units, Kraft North America Commercial (“KNAC”) and Kraft International Commercial (“KIC”). KNAC represents the North American food segment (United States and Canada) and KIC represents the international food segment.

 

KNAC and KIC are subject to a number of challenges that may adversely affect their businesses. These challenges, which are discussed below and in the Cautionary Factors That May Affect Future Results section include:

 

    fluctuations in commodity prices;

 

    movements of foreign currencies;

 

    competitive challenges in various products and markets, including price gaps with competitor products and the increasing price-consciousness of consumers;

 

    a rising cost environment and the limited ability to increase prices;

 

    a trend toward increasing consolidation in the retail trade and consequent pricing pressure and inventory reductions;

 

    a growing presence of discount retailers, primarily in Europe, with an emphasis on private label products;

 

    changing consumer preferences, including diet trends;

 

    competitors with different profit objectives and less susceptibility to currency exchange rates; and

 

    concerns and/or regulations regarding food safety, quality and health, including genetically modified organisms, trans-fatty acids and obesity. Increased government regulation of the food industry could result in increased costs to Kraft.

 

Fluctuations in commodity costs can lead to retail price volatility and intense price competition, and can influence consumer and trade buying patterns. During 2005, Kraft’s commodity costs on average have been higher than those incurred in 2004 (most notably coffee, nuts, energy and packaging), and have adversely affected earnings. For 2005, Kraft had a negative pre-tax earnings impact from all commodities of approximately $800 million as compared with 2004, following an increase of approximately $900 million for 2004 compared with 2003.

 

In the ordinary course of business, Kraft is subject to many influences that can impact the timing of sales to customers, including the timing of holidays and other annual or special events, seasonality of certain products, significant weather conditions, timing of Kraft or customer incentive programs and pricing actions, customer inventory programs, Kraft’s initiatives to improve supply chain efficiency, including efforts to align product shipments more closely with consumption by shifting some of its customer marketing programs to a consumption based approach, the financial condition of customers and general economic conditions. Kraft’s operating subsidiaries generally report year-end results as of the Saturday closest to the end of each year. This resulted in fifty-three weeks of operating results for Kraft in the consolidated statement of earnings for the year ended December 31, 2005, versus fifty-two weeks for the years ended December 31, 2004 and 2003.

 

In January 2004, Kraft announced a three-year restructuring program with the objectives of leveraging Kraft’s global scale, realigning and lowering its cost structure, and optimizing capacity utilization. As part of this program (which is discussed further in Note 3. Asset Impairment and Exit Costs ), Kraft anticipated the closure or sale of up to 20 plants and the elimination of approximately 6,000 positions. From 2004 through 2006, Kraft expects to incur approximately $1.2 billion in pre-tax charges, reflecting asset disposals, severance and other implementation costs, including $297 million and $641 million incurred in 2005 and 2004, respectively. Total pre-tax charges for the program incurred through December 31, 2005 were $938 million. Approximately 60% of the pre-tax charges are expected to require cash payments.

 

In addition, Kraft expects to incur approximately $170 million in capital expenditures from 2004 through 2006 to implement the restructuring program. From January 2004 through December 31, 2005, Kraft spent $144 million, including $98 million spent in 2005, in capital to implement the restructuring program. Cost savings as a result of the restructuring program were approximately $131 million in 2005 and $127 million in 2004, and were anticipated to reach cumulative annualized cost savings of approximately $450 million by 2006, all of which were expected to be used to support brand-building initiatives.

 

In January 2006, Kraft announced plans to expand its restructuring efforts beyond those originally contemplated. Additional pre-tax charges are anticipated to be $2.5 billion from 2006 to 2009, of which approximately $1.6 billion are expected to require cash payments. These charges will result in the anticipated closure of up to 20 additional facilities and the elimination of approximately 8,000 additional positions. Initiatives under the expanded program include additional organizational streamlining and facility closures. The expanded initiatives are expected to add approximately $700 million in annualized cost savings by 2009. Capitalized expenditures required for the expanded restructuring program will be included within Kraft’s overall capital spending budget, which is expected to remain flat in 2006 versus 2005 at $1.2 billion. The entire restructuring program is expected to ultimately result in $3.7 billion in pre-tax charges, the closure of up to 40 facilities, the elimination of approximately 14,000 positions and cumulative annualized cost savings at the completion of the program of approximately $1.15 billion. Approximately $2.3 billion of the $3.7 billion in pre-tax charges are expected to require cash payments.

 

One element of Kraft’s growth strategy is to strengthen its brand portfolio through a disciplined program of selective acquisitions and divestitures. Kraft is constantly reviewing potential acquisition candidates and from time to time sells businesses that are outside its core categories or that do not meet its growth or profitability targets. The impact of any future acquisition or divestiture could have a material impact on Altria Group, Inc.’s consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows, and future sales of businesses could in some cases result in losses on sale.

 

As previously discussed, Kraft sold substantially all of its sugar confectionery business in June 2005, for pre-tax proceeds of approximately $1.4 billion. The sale included the Life Savers , Creme Savers , Altoids , Trolli and Sugus brands. Altria Group, Inc. has reflected the results of Kraft’s sugar confectionery business prior to the closing date as discontinued operations on the consolidated statements of earnings for all years presented. The assets related to the sugar confectionery business were reflected as assets of discontinued operations held for sale on the consolidated balance sheet at December 31, 2004. Kraft recorded a net loss on sale of discontinued operations of $297 million in the second quarter of 2005, related largely to

 

30


Exhibit 13

 

 

taxes on the transaction. ALG’s share of the loss, net of minority interest, was $255 million.

 

During 2005, Kraft sold its fruit snacks assets and incurred a pre-tax asset impairment charge of $93 million in recognition of this sale. Additionally, during 2005, Kraft sold its U.K. desserts assets and its U.S. yogurt brand. The aggregate proceeds received from the sales of other businesses during 2005 were $238 million, on which pre-tax gains of $108 million were recorded. In December 2005, Kraft announced the sales of certain Canadian assets and a small U.S. biscuit brand and incurred pre-tax asset impairment charges of $176 million in recognition of these sales. These transactions closed in the first quarter of 2006.

 

During 2004, Kraft sold a Brazilian snack nuts business and trademarks associated with a candy business in Norway. The aggregate proceeds received from the sales of these businesses were $18 million, on which pre-tax losses of $3 million were recorded.

 

During 2004, Kraft acquired a U.S.-based beverage business for a total cost of $137 million. During 2003, Kraft acquired trademarks associated with a small U.S.-based natural foods business and also acquired a biscuits business in Egypt. The total cost of these and other smaller businesses purchased by Kraft during 2003 was $98 million.

 

During 2003, Kraft sold a European rice business and a branded fresh cheese business in Italy. The aggregate proceeds received from the sales of businesses in 2003 were $96 million, on which pre-tax gains of $31 million were recorded.

 

The operating results of businesses acquired and sold, excluding Kraft’s sugar confectionery business, in the aggregate, were not material to Altria Group, Inc.’s consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows in any of the years presented.

 

Operating Results

 

     Net Revenues

   Operating Companies
Income


(in millions)


   2005

   2004

   2003

   2005

   2004

   2003

North American food

   $ 23,293    $ 22,060    $ 20,937    $ 3,831    $ 3,870    $ 4,658

International food

     10,820      10,108      9,561      1,122      933      1,393
    

  

  

  

  

  

Total food

   $ 34,113    $ 32,168    $ 30,498    $ 4,953    $ 4,803    $ 6,051
    

  

  

  

  

  

 

2005 compared with 2004

 

The following discussion compares food operating results for 2005 with 2004.

 

·   North American food: North American food included 53 weeks of operating results in 2005 compared with 52 weeks in 2004. Kraft estimates that this extra week positively impacted net revenues and operating companies income in 2005 by approximately $435 million and $80 million, respectively.

 

Net revenues increased $1.2 billion (5.6%), due primarily to higher volume/mix ($873 million, including the benefit of the 53rd week), higher net pricing ($239 million, primarily reflecting commodity-driven price increases on coffee, nuts, cheese and meats, partially offset by increased promotional spending), favorable currency ($172 million) and the impact of acquisitions ($41 million), partially offset by the impact of divestitures ($97 million).

 

Operating companies income decreased $39 million (1.0%), due primarily to higher marketing, administration and research costs ($367 million, including higher benefit and marketing costs, as well as costs associated with the 53rd week), higher fixed manufacturing costs ($94 million), the net impact of higher implementation costs associated with the restructuring program ($15 million), the impact of divestitures ($9 million) and unfavorable costs, net of higher pricing ($3 million, including higher commodity costs and increased promotional spending), partially offset by favorable volume/mix ($364 million, including the benefit of the 53rd week), lower pre-tax charges for asset impairment and exit costs ($56 million) and favorable currency ($31 million).

 

Volume increased 2.0%, including the benefit of 53 weeks in 2005 results. Excluding acquisitions and divestitures, and the 53rd week of shipments, volume was essentially flat. In U.S. Beverages, volume increased, driven primarily by an acquisition in 2004, partially offset by volume declines in coffee due to the impact of commodity-driven price increases on category consumption. In U.S. Snacks & Cereals, volume increased, due primarily to higher biscuit shipments, and new product introductions and expanded distribution in cereals, partially offset by lower snack nut shipments, due to commodity-driven price increases and increased competitive activity. Volume increased in U.S. Convenient Meals, due primarily to new product introductions and higher shipments of cold cuts, and higher shipments of pizza and meals due primarily to the impact of the 53rd week. In U.S. Grocery, volume increased due primarily to the 53rd week of shipments. In U.S. Cheese, Canada & North America Foodservice, volume decreased, due primarily to the impact of divestitures and lower volume in Canada.

 

·   International food: International food included 53 weeks of operating results in 2005 compared with 52 weeks in 2004. Kraft estimates that this extra week positively impacted net revenues and operating companies income in 2005 by approximately $190 million and $20 million, respectively.

 

Net revenues increased $712 million (7.0%), due primarily to favorable currency ($361 million), higher pricing ($214 million, including higher commodity-driven pricing) and favorable volume/mix ($213 million, including the benefit of the 53rd week), partially offset by the impact of divestitures ($77 million). Net revenues were up in developing markets, driven by significant growth in Russia, Ukraine and the Middle East. In addition, net revenues increased in several Western European markets, partially offset by a decline in volume, particularly in Germany.

 

Operating companies income increased $189 million (20.3%), due primarily to favorable volume/mix ($115 million, including the benefit of the 53rd week), net gains on the sale of businesses ($112 million), lower pre-tax charges for asset impairment and exit costs ($68 million), favorable currency ($59 million) and a 2004 equity investment impairment charge related to a joint venture in Turkey ($47 million), partially offset by unfavorable costs and increased promotional spending, net of higher pricing ($99 million, including higher commodity costs), higher marketing, administration and research costs ($53 million, including higher marketing and benefit costs, and costs associated with the 53rd week, partially offset by a $16 million recovery of receivables previously written off), the impact of divestitures ($24 million), the net impact of higher implementation costs associated with the Kraft restructuring program ($22 million) and higher fixed manufacturing costs ($16 million).

 

Volume decreased 1.2%, including the benefit of 53 weeks in 2005 results. Excluding the 53rd week of shipments in 2005 and the impact of divestitures, volume decreased approximately 2%, due primarily to higher commodity-driven pricing.

 

In Europe, Middle East & Africa, volume decreased, due primarily to lower volume in Germany and the divestiture of the U.K. desserts assets in the first quarter of 2005, partially offset by growth in developing markets, including

 

31


Exhibit 13

 

 

Russia, Ukraine and the Middle East. In grocery, volume declined, due to the divestiture of the U.K. desserts assets in the first quarter of 2005 and lower results in Egypt and Germany. Beverages volume decreased, driven by lower coffee shipments in Germany, due to commodity-driven price increases, partially offset by higher shipments of refreshment beverages in the Middle East and higher shipments of coffee in Russia and Ukraine. Convenient meals volume declined, due primarily to lower category performance in the U.K. and lower promotions in Germany. Cheese volume increased due to higher shipments in the U.K., Italy and the Middle East. In snacks, volume increased, as gains in confectionery, benefiting from growth in Russia and Ukraine, were partially offset by lower biscuits volume in Egypt.

 

Volume decreased in Latin America & Asia Pacific, due primarily to lower shipments in China, partially offset by growth in Southeast Asia. Grocery volume declined, due primarily to lower shipments in Brazil and Central America. Snacks volume also declined, impacted by increased biscuit competition in China and resizing of biscuit products in Latin America, partially offset by higher shipments in Venezuela. In beverages, volume increased, due primarily to refreshment beverage gains in the Philippines, Argentina and Puerto Rico.

 

2004 compared with 2003

 

The following discussion compares food operating results for 2004 with 2003.

 

·   North American food: Net revenues increased $1.1 billion (5.4%), due primarily to higher volume/mix ($537 million), higher net pricing ($312 million, reflecting commodity-driven price increases, partially offset by increased promotional spending), favorable currency ($164 million) and the impact of acquisitions ($117 million). Higher net revenues were driven by cheese, meats and nuts due to higher volume in response to consumer nutrition trends and higher commodity-driven pricing net of increased promotional spending.

 

Operating companies income decreased $788 million (16.9%), due primarily to the 2004 pre-tax charges for asset impairment and exit costs ($391 million), cost increases, net of higher pricing ($356 million, including higher commodity costs and increased promotional spending), higher marketing, administration and research costs ($214 million, including higher benefit costs), and the 2004 implementation costs associated with the Kraft restructuring program ($40 million), partially offset by higher volume/mix ($197 million) and favorable currency ($29 million).

 

Volume increased 4.3%, of which 2.6% was due to acquisitions. In U.S. Beverages, volume increased, driven primarily by an acquisition in beverages, growth in coffee and new product introductions. Volume gains were achieved in U.S. Cheese, Canada & North America Foodservice, due primarily to promotional reinvestment spending in cheese and higher volume in Foodservice, due to the impact of an acquisition and higher shipments to national accounts. In U.S. Convenient Meals, volume increased, due primarily to higher cold cuts shipments and new product introductions in pizza, partially offset by lower shipments of meals. In U.S. Grocery, volume increased, due primarily to growth in enhancers, partially offset by declines in desserts. In U.S. Snacks & Cereals, volume increased, due primarily to higher snack nuts and biscuits shipments, partially offset by lower cereals volumes.

 

·   International food: Net revenues increased $547 million (5.7%), due primarily to favorable currency ($674 million), favorable volume/mix ($23 million) and the impact of acquisitions ($23 million), partially offset by the impact of divestitures ($126 million) and increased promotional spending, net of higher pricing ($47 million). Lower pricing and higher promotional spending on coffee in Europe and lower shipments of refreshment beverages in Mexico negatively impacted net revenues.

 

Operating companies income decreased $460 million (33.0%), due primarily to the pre-tax charges for asset impairment and exit costs ($206 million), cost increases and increased promotional spending, net of higher pricing ($113 million), higher marketing, administration and research costs ($92 million, including higher benefit costs and infrastructure investment in developing markets), an investment impairment charge relating to a joint venture in Turkey ($47 million), the 2004 loss and 2003 gain on sales of businesses (aggregating $34 million) and the impact of divestitures, partially offset by favorable currency ($69 million).

 

Volume decreased 1.1%, due primarily to the impact of the divestitures of a rice business and a branded fresh cheese business in Europe in 2003, as well as price competition and trade inventory reductions in several markets, partially offset by the impact of acquisitions.

 

In Europe, Middle East and Africa, volume decreased, impacted by divestitures, price competition in France and trade inventory reductions in Russia, partially offset by growth in Germany, Austria, Italy and Romania, and the impact of acquisitions. Beverages volume declined, impacted by price competition in coffee in France and lower shipments of refreshment beverages in the Middle East. In cheese, volume decreased, due primarily to the divestiture of a branded fresh cheese business in Italy, partially offset by higher shipments of cream cheese in Germany, Italy and the United Kingdom, and higher process cheese shipments in the United Kingdom. In convenient meals, volume declined, due primarily to the divestiture of a European rice business. In grocery, volume declined across several markets, including Germany and Italy, partially offset by an acquisition in Egypt. Snacks volume increased, benefiting from acquisitions and new product introductions across the region, partially offset by trade inventory reductions in Russia.

 

Volume decreased in Latin America & Asia Pacific, due primarily to declines in Mexico, Peru, and Venezuela, partially offset by gains in Brazil and China. Snacks volume decreased, impacted by price competition and trade inventory reductions in Peru and Venezuela. In grocery, volume decreased across several markets, including Peru, Australia and the Philippines. In beverages, volume increased, impacted by gains in Brazil and China, partially offset by price competition in Mexico. Cheese volume increased, with gains across several markets, including Japan, Australia and the Philippines.

 

Financial Services

 

Business Environment

 

In 2003, PMCC shifted its strategic focus and is no longer making new investments but is instead focused on managing its existing portfolio of finance assets in order to maximize gains and generate cash flow from asset sales and related activities. Accordingly, PMCC’s operating companies income will fluctuate over time as investments mature or are sold. During 2005, 2004 and 2003, PMCC received proceeds from asset sales and maturities of $476 million, $644 million and $507 million, respectively, and recorded gains of $72 million, $112 million and $45 million respectively, in operating companies income.

 

Among its leasing activities, PMCC leases a number of aircraft, predominantly to major United States passenger carriers. At December 31, 2005, $2.1 billion of PMCC’s finance asset balance related to aircraft. Two of PMCC’s aircraft lessees, Delta Air Lines, Inc. (“Delta”) and Northwest Airlines, Inc. (“Northwest”) are currently under bankruptcy protection and a third lessee, United

 

32


Exhibit 13

 

 

Air Lines, Inc. (“United”) exited bankruptcy on February 1, 2006. In addition, PMCC leases various natural gas-fired power plants to indirect subsidiaries of Calpine Corporation (“Calpine”), also currently under bankruptcy protection. PMCC is not recording income on any of these leases.

 

PMCC leases 24 Boeing 757 aircraft to United with an aggregate finance asset balance of $541 million at December 31, 2005. PMCC has entered into an agreement with United to amend 18 direct finance leases and United has assumed the 18 amended leases. There is no third-party debt associated with these leases. United remains current on lease payments due to PMCC on these 18 amended leases. PMCC continues to monitor the situation at United with respect to the six remaining aircraft financed under leveraged leases, in which PMCC has an aggregate finance asset balance of $92 million. United and the public debtholders have a court approved agreement that calls for the public debtholders to foreclose on PMCC’s interests in these six aircraft and transfer them to United. The foreclosure, expected to occur in 2006, subsequent to United’s emergence from bankruptcy, would result in the write-off of the $92 million finance asset balance against PMCC’s allowance for losses and the acceleration of tax payments in the amount of approximately $55 million on these leases.

 

In addition, PMCC has an aggregate finance asset balance of $257 million at December 31, 2005, relating to six Boeing 757, nine Boeing 767 and four McDonnell Douglas (MD-88) aircraft leased to Delta under leveraged leases. In November 2004, PMCC, along with other aircraft lessors, entered into restructuring agreements with Delta on all 19 aircraft. As a result of its agreement, PMCC recorded a charge to the allowance for losses of $40 million in the fourth quarter of 2004. As a result of Delta’s bankruptcy filing in September 2005, the restructuring agreement is no longer in effect and PMCC is at risk of having its interest in these aircraft foreclosed upon by the senior lenders under the leveraged leases. Should a foreclosure occur, it would also result in the write-off of the finance asset balance against PMCC’s allowance for losses and the acceleration of tax payments on these leases, and may require further provisions to increase the allowance for losses.

 

PMCC also leases three Airbus A-320 aircraft and five British Aerospace RJ85 aircraft to Northwest financed under leveraged leases with an aggregate finance asset balance of $62 million at December 31, 2005. Northwest filed for bankruptcy protection in September 2005. As a result of Northwest’s bankruptcy filing, PMCC is at risk of having its interest in these aircraft foreclosed upon by the senior lenders under the leveraged leases. Should a foreclosure occur, it would also result in the write-off of the finance asset balance against PMCC’s allowance for losses and the acceleration of tax payments on these leases.

 

In addition, PMCC’s leveraged leases for ten Airbus A-319 aircraft with Northwest have been rejected in the bankruptcy. As a result of the lease rejection, PMCC, as owner of the aircraft, recorded these assets on its consolidated balance sheet at the lower of net book value or fair market value. The adjustment to fair market value resulted in a $100 million charge against the allowance for losses in the fourth quarter of 2005. The assets are classified as held for sale and reflected in Financial Services other assets on the consolidated balance sheet until such time as the assets are either sold or foreclosed upon by the lenders. In addition, the related nonrecourse debt is reflected in Financial Services other liabilities on the consolidated balance sheet until such time as the underlying assets are either sold or foreclosed upon by the senior lenders. Should a foreclosure occur, it would result in the acceleration of tax payments on these aircraft of approximately $57 million.

 

In addition, PMCC leases 16 Airbus A-319 aircraft to US Airways, Inc. (“US Airways”) financed under leveraged leases with an aggregate finance asset balance of $150 million at December 31, 2005. In September 2005, US Airways emerged from bankruptcy protection and assumed the leases on PMCC’s aircraft without any changes. Also in September 2005, US Airways and America West Holdings Corp. (“America West”) completed a merger. PMCC leases five Airbus A-320 aircraft and three engines to America West with an aggregate finance asset balance of $44 million at December 31, 2005.

 

PMCC also leases two 265 megawatt (“MW”) natural gas-fired power plants (located in Tiverton, Rhode Island, and Rumford, Maine) and one 750 MW natural gas-fired power plant (located in Pasadena, Texas) to indirect subsidiaries of Calpine financed under leveraged leases with an aggregate finance asset balance of $206 million at December 31, 2005. On December 20, 2005, Calpine filed for bankruptcy protection. In the initial bankruptcy filing, PMCC’s lessees of the Tiverton and Rumford projects were included. On February 6, 2006, these leases were rejected. The Pasadena lessee did not file for bankruptcy but could file at a future date. Should a foreclosure on any of these projects occur, it would result in the write-off of the finance asset balance against PMCC’s allowance for losses and the acceleration of tax payments on these leases, and may require further provisions to increase the allowance for losses.

 

Due to continuing uncertainty within its airline portfolio and bankruptcy filings by Delta and Northwest, PMCC recorded a provision for losses of $200 million in September 2005. As a result of this provision, PMCC’s fixed charges coverage ratio did not meet its 1.25:1 requirement under a support agreement with ALG. Accordingly, as required by the support agreement, a support payment of $150 million was made by ALG to PMCC in September 2005.

 

Previously, PMCC recorded provisions for losses of $140 million in the fourth quarter of 2004 and $290 million in the fourth quarter of 2002 for its airline industry exposure. At December 31, 2005, PMCC’s allowance for losses, which includes the provisions recorded by PMCC for its airline industry exposure, was $596 million. It is possible that adverse developments in the airline or other industries may require PMCC to increase its allowance for losses.

 

Operating Results

 

     Net Revenues

   Operating
Companies Income


(in millions)


   2005

   2004

   2003

   2005

   2004

   2003

Financial Services

   $ 319    $ 395    $ 432    $ 31    $ 144    $ 313
    

  

  

  

  

  

 

PMCC’s net revenues for 2005 decreased $76 million (19.2%) from 2004, due primarily to the previously discussed change in strategy which resulted in lower lease portfolio revenues and lower gains from asset management activity. PMCC’s operating companies income for 2005 decreased $113 million (78.5%) from 2004. Operating companies income for 2005 includes a $200 million increase to the provision for airline industry exposure as discussed above, an increase of $60 million over the prior year’s provision, and lower gains from asset sales, partially offset by lower interest expense.

 

PMCC’s net revenues for 2004 decreased $37 million (8.6%) from 2003, due primarily to the previously discussed change in strategy which resulted in lower lease portfolio revenues, partially offset by an increase of $66 million from gains on asset sales. PMCC’s operating companies income for 2004 decreased $169 million (54.0%) from 2003, due primarily to the 2004 provision for airline industry exposure discussed above, and the decrease in net revenues.

 

33


Exhibit 13

 

 

Financial Review

 

·   Net Cash Provided by Operating Activities: During 2005, net cash provided by operating activities was $11.1 billion, compared with $10.9 billion during 2004. The increase in cash provided by operating activities was due primarily to higher earnings from continuing operations and lower escrow bond deposits related to the Price domestic tobacco case, partially offset by a higher use of cash to fund working capital and increased pension plan contributions.

 

During 2004, net cash provided by operating activities was $10.9 billion, compared with $10.8 billion during 2003. The increase of $74 million was due primarily to higher net earnings in 2004, partially offset by higher escrow deposits for the Price domestic tobacco case and lower cash from the financial services business.

 

·   Net Cash Used in Investing Activities: One element of the growth strategy of ALG’s subsidiaries is to strengthen their brand portfolios through active programs of selective acquisitions and divestitures. These subsidiaries are constantly investigating potential acquisition candidates and from time to time Kraft sells businesses that are outside its core categories or that do not meet its growth or profitability targets. The impact of future acquisitions or divestitures could have a material impact on Altria Group, Inc.’s consolidated cash flows, and future sales of businesses could in some cases result in losses on sale.

 

During 2005, 2004 and 2003, net cash used in investing activities was $4.9 billion, $1.4 billion and $2.4 billion, respectively. The increase in 2005 primarily reflects the purchase of 98% of the outstanding shares of Sampoerna in 2005, partially offset by proceeds from the sales of businesses (primarily Kraft’s sugar confectionery business) in 2005. The decrease in 2004 primarily reflects lower amounts used for the purchase of businesses. The discontinuation of finance asset investments, as well as the increased proceeds from finance asset sales also contributed to a lower level of cash used in investing activities.

 

Capital expenditures for 2005 increased 15.3% to $2.2 billion. Approximately 44% related to tobacco operations and approximately 53% related to food operations; the expenditures were primarily for modernization and consolidation of manufacturing facilities, and expansion of certain production capacity. In 2006, capital expenditures are expected to be approximately 20% above 2005 expenditures and are expected to be funded by operating cash flows.

 

·   Net Cash Used in Financing Activities: During 2005, net cash used in financing activities was $5.1 billion, compared with $8.0 billion in 2004 and $5.5 billion in 2003. The decrease of $2.9 billion from 2004 was due primarily to increased borrowings in 2005, which were primarily related to the acquisition of Sampoerna, partially offset by higher dividends paid on Altria Group, Inc. common stock and an increase in share repurchases at Kraft. The increase of $2.5 billion over 2003 was due primarily to the repayment of debt in 2004, as compared with 2003 when ALG and Kraft borrowed against their revolving credit facilities, while their access to commercial paper markets was temporarily eliminated following a $10.1 billion judgment against PM USA.

 

·   Debt and Liquidity:

 

Credit Ratings: Following a $10.1 billion judgment on March 21, 2003, against PM USA in the Price litigation, which is discussed in Note 19, the three major credit rating agencies took a series of ratings actions resulting in the lowering of ALG’s short-term and long-term debt ratings. During 2003, Moody’s lowered ALG’s short-term debt rating from “P-1” to “P-3” and its long-term debt rating from “A2” to “Baa2.” Standard & Poor’s lowered ALG’s short-term debt rating from “A-1” to “A-2” and its long-term debt rating from “A-” to “BBB.” Fitch Rating Services lowered ALG’s short-term debt rating from “F-1” to “F-2” and its long-term debt rating from “A” to “BBB.”

 

While Kraft is not a party to, and has no exposure to, this litigation, its credit ratings were also lowered, but to a lesser degree. As a result of the rating agencies’ actions, borrowing costs for ALG and Kraft have increased. None of ALG’s or Kraft’s debt agreements require accelerated repayment as a result of a decrease in credit ratings. The credit rating downgrades by Moody’s, Standard & Poor’s, and Fitch Rating Services had no impact on any of ALG’s or Kraft’s other existing third-party contracts.

 

Credit Lines: ALG and Kraft each maintain separate revolving credit facilities that they have historically used to support the issuance of commercial paper. However, as a result of the rating agencies’ actions discussed above, ALG’s and Kraft’s access to the commercial paper market was temporarily eliminated in 2003. Subsequently, in April 2003, ALG and Kraft began to borrow against existing credit facilities to repay maturing commercial paper and to fund normal working capital needs. By the end of May 2003, Kraft regained its access to the commercial paper market. ALG’s access to the commercial paper market has improved since it regained limited access in November 2003, but not to the levels achieved prior to the ratings downgrades.

 

As discussed in Note 5. Acquisitions , the purchase price of the Sampoerna acquisition was primarily financed through a euro 4.5 billion bank credit facility arranged for PMI and its subsidiaries in May 2005, consisting of a euro 2.5 billion three-year term loan facility and a euro 2.0 billion five-year revolving credit facility. These facilities, which are not guaranteed by ALG, require PMI to maintain an earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization (“EBITDA”) to interest ratio of not less than 3.5 to 1.0. At December 31, 2005, PMI exceeded this ratio by a significant amount and is expected to continue to exceed it.

 

In April 2005, ALG negotiated a 364-day revolving credit facility in the amount of $1.0 billion and a new multi-year credit facility in the amount of $4.0 billion, which expires in April 2010. In addition, ALG terminated its existing $5.0 billion multi-year credit facility, which was due to expire in July 2006. The new ALG facilities require the maintenance of an earnings to fixed charges ratio, as defined by the agreements, of 2.5 to 1.0. At December 31, 2005, the ratio calculated in accordance with the agreements was 10.0 to 1.0.

 

In April 2005, Kraft negotiated a new multi-year revolving credit facility to replace both its $2.5 billion 364-day facility that was due to expire in July 2005 and its $2.0 billion multi-year facility that was due to expire in July 2006. The new Kraft facility, which is for the sole use of Kraft, in the amount of $4.5 billion, expires in April 2010 and requires the maintenance of a minimum net worth of $20.0 billion. At December 31, 2005, Kraft’s net worth was $29.6 billion.

 

ALG, PMI and Kraft expect to continue to meet their respective covenants. These facilities do not include any credit rating triggers or any provisions that could require the posting of collateral. The multi-year facilities enable the respective companies to reclassify short-term debt on a long-term basis.

 

At December 31, 2005, $2.4 billion of short-term borrowings that PMI expects to remain outstanding at December 31, 2006 were reclassified as long-term debt.

 

34


Exhibit 13

 

 

At December 31, 2005, credit lines for ALG, Kraft and PMI, and the related activity were as follows:

 

ALG

 

Type

(in billions of dollars)


   Credit Lines

   Amount
Drawn


   Commercial
Paper
Outstanding


   Lines
Available


364-day

   $ 1.0    $ -    $ -    $ 1.0

Multi-year

     4.0                    4.0
    

  

  

  

     $ 5.0    $ -    $ -    $ 5.0
    

  

  

  

Kraft

                           

Type

(in billions of dollars)


   Credit Lines

   Amount
Drawn


   Commercial
Paper
Outstanding


   Lines
Available


Multi-year

   $ 4.5    $ -    $ 0.4    $ 4.1
    

  

  

  

PMI

                           

Type

(in billions of dollars)


        Credit Lines

   Amount
Drawn


   Lines
Available


euro 2.5 billion, 3-year term loan

          $ 3.0    $ 3.0    $ -

euro 2.0 billion, 5-year revolving credit

            2.3      0.8      1.5
           

  

  

            $ 5.3    $ 3.8    $ 1.5
           

  

  

 

In addition to the above, certain international subsidiaries of ALG and Kraft maintain credit lines to meet their respective working capital needs. These credit lines, which amounted to approximately $2.2 billion for ALG subsidiaries (other than Kraft) and approximately $1.3 billion for Kraft subsidiaries, are for the sole use of these international businesses. Borrowings on these lines amounted to approximately $1.0 billion at December 31, 2005.

 

Debt: Altria Group, Inc.’s total debt (consumer products and financial services) was $23.9 billion and $23.0 billion at December 31, 2005 and 2004, respectively. Total consumer products debt was $21.9 billion and $20.8 billion at December 31, 2005 and 2004, respectively. Total consumer products debt includes third-party debt in Kraft’s consolidated balance sheet of $10.5 billion and $12.3 billion, at December 31, 2005 and 2004, respectively, and PMI third-party debt of $4.9 billion and $0.7 billion at December 31, 2005 and 2004, respectively. At December 31, 2005 and 2004, Altria Group, Inc.’s ratio of consumer products debt to total equity was 0.61 and 0.68, respectively. The ratio of total debt to total equity was 0.67 and 0.75 at December 31, 2005 and 2004, respectively. Fixed-rate debt constituted approximately 75% and 90% of total consumer products debt at December 31, 2005 and 2004, respectively. The weighted average interest rate on total consumer products debt, including the impact of swap agreements, was approximately 5.4% at December 31, 2005 and 2004.

 

In November 2004, Kraft issued $750 million of 5-year notes bearing interest at 4.125%. The net proceeds of the offering were used by Kraft to refinance maturing debt. Kraft has a Form S-3 shelf registration statement on file with the SEC, under which Kraft may sell debt securities and/or warrants to purchase debt securities in one or more offerings. At December 31, 2005, Kraft had $3.5 billion of capacity remaining under its shelf registration.

 

At December 31, 2005, ALG had approximately $2.8 billion of capacity remaining under its existing shelf registration statement.

 

ALG does not guarantee the debt of Kraft or PMI.

 

Taxes: The IRS is examining the consolidated tax returns for Altria Group, Inc., which includes PMCC, for years 1996 through 1999. Recently, the IRS has proposed to disallow certain transactions, and may in the future challenge and disallow several more, of PMCC’s leveraged leases based on recent Revenue Rulings and a recent IRS Notice addressing specific types of leveraged leases (lease-in/lease-out transactions, qualified technological equipment transactions, and sale-in/lease-out transactions). Altria Group, Inc. is expecting an assessment regarding these transactions for the years 1996 to 1999. PMCC believes that the position and supporting case law described in the Revenue Rulings and the IRS Notice as well as those asserted in the proposed adjustments, are incorrectly applied to PMCC’s transactions and that its leveraged leases are factually and legally distinguishable in material respects from the IRS’s position. PMCC and ALG intend to vigorously defend against any challenges based on that position through administrative appeals and litigation, if necessary, and ALG believes that, given the strength of PMCC’s position, it should ultimately prevail. However, litigation is subject to many uncertainties and an adverse outcome could have a material adverse effect on Altria Group, Inc.’s consolidated results of operations, cash flows or financial position.

 

·   Off-Balance Sheet Arrangements and Aggregate Contractual Obligations: Altria Group, Inc. has no off-balance sheet arrangements, including special purpose entities, other than guarantees and contractual obligations that are discussed below.

 

Guarantees: As discussed in Note 19, at December 31, 2005, Altria Group, Inc.’s third-party guarantees, which are primarily related to excise taxes, and acquisition and divestiture activities, approximated $328 million, of which $296 million have no specified expiration dates. The remainder expire through 2023, with $17 million expiring during 2006. Altria Group, Inc. is required to perform under these guarantees in the event that a third party fails to make contractual payments or achieve performance measures. Altria Group, Inc. has a liability of $41 million on its consolidated balance sheet at December 31, 2005, relating to these guarantees. In the ordinary course of business, certain subsidiaries of ALG have agreed to indemnify a limited number of third parties in the event of future litigation. At December 31, 2005, subsidiaries of ALG were also contingently liable for $1.8 billion of guarantees related to their own performance, consisting of the following:

 

    $1.5 billion of guarantees of excise tax and import duties related primarily to international shipments of tobacco products. In these agreements, a financial institution provides a guarantee of tax payments to the respective governments. PMI then issues a guarantee to the respective financial institution for the payment of the taxes. These are revolving facilities that are integral to the shipment of tobacco products in international markets, and the underlying taxes payable are recorded on Altria Group, Inc.’s consolidated balance sheet.

 

    $0.3 billion of other guarantees related to the tobacco and food businesses.

 

Although Altria Group, Inc.’s guarantees of its own performance are frequently short-term in nature, the short-term guarantees are expected to be replaced, upon expiration, with similar guarantees of similar amounts. These items have not had, and are not expected to have, a significant impact on Altria Group, Inc.’s liquidity.

 

35


Exhibit 13

 

 

Aggregate Contractual Obligations: The following table summarizes Altria Group, Inc.’s contractual obligations at December 31, 2005:

 

     Payments Due

(in millions)


   Total

   2006

   2007-
2008


   2009-
2010


   2011 and
Thereafter


Long-term debt (1) :

                                  

Consumer products

   $ 16,738    $ 3,430    $ 4,864    $ 1,052    $ 7,392

Financial services

     2,014      943      572      499       
    

  

  

  

  

       18,752      4,373      5,436      1,551      7,392

Operating leases (2)

     1,619      436      561      278      344

Purchase obligations (3) :

                                  

Inventory and production costs

     5,868      3,170      1,682      533      483

Other

     5,273      2,912      1,346      689      326
    

  

  

  

  

       11,141      6,082      3,028      1,222      809

Other long-term liabilities (4)

     158      6      107      21      24
    

  

  

  

  

     $ 31,670    $ 10,897    $ 9,132    $ 3,072    $ 8,569
    

  

  

  

  


(1) Amounts represent the expected cash payments of Altria Group, Inc.’s long-term debt and do not include short-term borrowings reclassified as long-term debt, bond premiums or discounts, or nonrecourse debt issued by PMCC. Amounts include capital lease obligations, primarily associated with the expansion of PMI’s vending machine distribution in Japan.

 

(2) Amounts represent the minimum rental commitments under non-cancelable operating leases.

 

(3) Purchase obligations for inventory and production costs (such as raw materials, indirect materials and supplies, packaging, co-manufacturing arrangements, storage and distribution) are commitments for projected needs to be utilized in the normal course of business. Other purchase obligations include commitments for marketing, advertising, capital expenditures, information technology and professional services. Arrangements are considered purchase obligations if a contract specifies all significant terms, including fixed or minimum quantities to be purchased, a pricing structure and approximate timing of the transaction. Most arrangements are cancelable without a significant penalty, and with short notice (usually 30 days). Any amounts reflected on the consolidated balance sheet as accounts payable and accrued liabilities are excluded from the table above.

 

(4) Other long-term liabilities primarily consist of specific severance and incentive compensation arrangements. The following long-term liabilities included on the consolidated balance sheet are excluded from the table above: accrued pension, postretirement health care and postemployment costs, income taxes, minority interest, insurance accruals and other accruals. Altria Group, Inc. is unable to estimate the timing of payments for these items. Currently, Altria Group, Inc. anticipates making U.S. pension contributions of approximately $410 million in 2006 and non-U.S. pension contributions of approximately $216 million in 2006, based on current tax law (as discussed in Note 16. Benefit Plans ).

 

The State Settlement Agreements and related legal fee payments, and payments for tobacco growers, as discussed below and in Note 19, are excluded from the table above, as the payments are subject to adjustment for several factors, including inflation, market share and industry volume. In addition, the international tobacco E.C. agreement payments discussed below are excluded from the table above, as the payments are subject to adjustment based on certain variables including PMI’s market share in the European Union. Litigation escrow deposits, as discussed below and in Note 19. Contingencies , are also excluded from the table above since these deposits will be returned to PM USA should it prevail on appeal.

 

International Tobacco E.C. Agreement: In July 2004, PMI entered into an agreement with the E.C. and 10 member states of the European Union that provides for broad cooperation with European law enforcement agencies on anti-contraband and anti-counterfeit efforts. This agreement resolves all disputes between the parties relating to these issues. Under the terms of the agreement, PMI will make 13 payments over 12 years, including an initial payment of $250 million, which was recorded as a pre-tax charge against its earnings in 2004. The agreement calls for additional payments of approximately $150 million on the first anniversary of the agreement (this payment was made in July 2005), approximately $100 million on the second anniversary and approximately $75 million each year thereafter for 10 years, each of which is to be adjusted based on certain variables, including PMI’s market share in the European Union in the year preceding payment. Because the additional payments are subject to these variables, PMI records charges for them as an expense in cost of sales when product is shipped. During the third quarter of 2004, PMI began accruing for payments due on the first anniversary of the agreement.

 

Payments Under State Settlement and Other Tobacco Agreements: As discussed previously and in Note 19, PM USA has entered into State Settlement Agreements with the states and territories of the United States and had entered into agreements for the benefit of United States tobacco growers which have now been replaced by obligations imposed by FETRA. During 2004, PMI entered into a cooperation agreement with the European Community. Each of these agreements calls for payments that are based on variable factors, such as cigarette volume, market shares and inflation. PM USA and PMI account for the cost of these agreements as a component of cost of sales as product is shipped.

 

As a result of these agreements, PM USA and PMI recorded the following amounts in cost of sales for the years ended December 31, 2005, 2004 and 2003:

 

(in billions)


   PM USA

   PMI

   Total

2005

   $ 5.0    $ 0.1    $ 5.1

2004

     4.6      0.1      4.7

2003

     4.4             4.4
    

  

  

 

In addition, during 2004, PMI recorded a pre-tax charge of $250 million at the signing of the cooperation agreement with the European Community, and PM USA recorded a one-time pre-tax charge of $202 million in 2003 related to the settlement of litigation with tobacco growers.

 

Based on current agreements and current estimates of volume and market share, the estimated amounts that PM USA and PMI may charge to cost of sales under these agreements will be approximately as follows:

 

(in billions)


   PM USA

   PMI

   Total

2006

   $ 5.1    $ 0.1    $ 5.2

2007

     5.6      0.1      5.7

2008

     5.8      0.1      5.9

2009

     5.8      0.1      5.9

2010

     5.9      0.1      6.0

2011 to 2016

     5.9 annually      0.1 annually      6.0 annually

Thereafter

     6.1 annually             6.1 annually
    

  

  

 

The estimated amounts charged to cost of sales in each of the years above would generally be paid in the following year. As previously stated, the payments due under the terms of these agreements are subject to adjustment for several factors, including cigarette volume, inflation and certain contingent events and, in general, are allocated based on each manufacturer’s market share. The amounts shown in the table above are estimates, and actual amounts will differ as underlying assumptions differ from actual future results.

 

36


Exhibit 13

 

 

Litigation Escrow Deposits: As discussed in Note 19, in connection with obtaining a stay of execution in May 2001 in the Engle class action, PM USA placed $1.2 billion into an interest-bearing escrow account. The $1.2 billion escrow account and a deposit of $100 million related to the bonding requirement are included in the December 31, 2005 and 2004 consolidated balance sheets as other assets. These amounts will be returned to PM USA should it prevail in its appeal of the case. Interest income on the $1.2 billion escrow account is paid to PM USA quarterly and is being recorded as earned in interest and other debt expense, net, in the consolidated statements of earnings.

 

In addition, in connection with obtaining a stay of execution in the Price case, PM USA placed a pre-existing 7.0%, $6 billion long-term note from ALG to PM USA into an escrow account with an Illinois financial institution. Since this note is the result of an intercompany financing arrangement, it does not appear on the consolidated balance sheet of Altria Group, Inc. In addition, PM USA agreed to make cash deposits with the clerk of the Madison County Circuit Court in the following amounts: beginning October 1, 2003, an amount equal to the interest earned by PM USA on the ALG note ($210 million every six months), an additional $800 million in four equal quarterly installments between September 2003 and June 2004 and the payments of the principal of the note which are due in equal installments in April 2008, 2009 and 2010. Through December 31, 2005, PM USA made $1.85 billion in cash deposits due under the judge’s order. Cash deposits into the account are included in other assets on the consolidated balance sheet. If PM USA prevails on appeal, the escrowed note and all cash deposited with the court will be returned to PM USA, with accrued interest less administrative fees payable to the court.

 

With respect to certain adverse verdicts and judicial decisions currently on appeal, other than the Engle and the Price cases discussed above, as of December 31, 2005, PM USA has posted various forms of security totaling approximately $329 million, the majority of which have been collateralized with cash deposits, to obtain stays of judgments pending appeals. In addition, as discussed in Note 19, PMI placed 51 million euro in an escrow account pending appeal of an adverse administrative court decision in Italy. These cash deposits are included in other assets on the consolidated balance sheets.

 

As discussed above under Tobacco—Business Environment , the present legislative and litigation environment is substantially uncertain and could result in material adverse consequences for the business, financial condition, cash flows or results of operations of ALG, PM USA and PMI. Assuming there are no material adverse developments in the legislative and litigation environment, Altria Group, Inc. expects its cash flow from operations to provide sufficient liquidity to meet the ongoing needs of the business.

 

·   Equity and Dividends : Following the rating agencies’ actions in the first quarter of 2003, discussed above in “Credit Ratings,” ALG suspended its share repurchase program.

 

During December 2004, Kraft completed its $700 million share repurchase program and began a $1.5 billion two-year share repurchase program. During 2005 and 2004, Kraft repurchased 39.2 million and 21.5 million shares, respectively, of its Class A common stock at a cost of $1.2 billion and $700 million, respectively. As of December 31, 2005, Kraft had repurchased 40.6 million shares of its Class A common stock, under its $1.5 billion authority, at an aggregate cost of $1.25 billion.

 

As discussed in Note 12. Stock Plans, in January 2005 and January 2004, Altria Group, Inc. granted approximately 1.2 million and 1.4 million shares of restricted stock, respectively, to eligible U.S.-based employees and Directors of Altria Group, Inc. and also issued to eligible non-U.S. employees and Directors rights to receive approximately 1.0 million equivalent shares each year. Restrictions on the stock and rights granted in 2005 and 2004 lapse in the first quarter of 2008 and the first quarter of 2007, respectively.

 

At December 31, 2005, the number of shares to be issued upon exercise of outstanding stock options and vesting of non-U.S. rights to receive equivalent shares was 54.8 million, or 2.6% of shares outstanding.

 

Dividends paid in 2005 and 2004 were $6.2 billion and $5.7 billion, respectively, an increase of 9.2%, primarily reflecting a higher dividend rate in 2005. During the third quarter of 2005, Altria Group, Inc.’s Board of Directors approved a 9.6% increase in the quarterly dividend rate to $0.80 per share. As a result, the annualized dividend rate increased to $3.20 from $2.92.

 

Market Risk

 

ALG’s subsidiaries operate globally, with manufacturing and sales facilities in various locations around the world. ALG and its subsidiaries utilize certain financial instruments to manage foreign currency and commodity exposures. Derivative financial instruments are used by ALG and its subsidiaries, principally to reduce exposures to market risks resulting from fluctuations in foreign exchange rates and commodity prices, by creating offsetting exposures. Altria Group, Inc. is not a party to leveraged derivatives and, by policy, does not use derivative financial instruments for speculative purposes.

 

A substantial portion of Altria Group, Inc.’s derivative financial instruments are effective as hedges. Hedging activity affected accumulated other comprehensive earnings (losses), net of income taxes, during the years ended December 31, 2005, 2004 and 2003, as follows:

 

(in millions)


   2005

    2004

    2003

 

Loss as of January 1

   $ (14 )   $ (83 )   $ (77 )

Derivative (gains) losses transferred to earnings

     (95 )     86       (42 )

Change in fair value

     133       (17 )     36  
    


 


 


Gain (loss) as of December 31

   $ 24     $ (14 )   $ (83 )
    


 


 


 

The fair value of all derivative financial instruments has been calculated based on market quotes.

 

·   Foreign exchange rates: Altria Group, Inc. uses forward foreign exchange contracts and foreign currency options to mitigate its exposure to changes in exchange rates from third-party and intercompany actual and forecasted transactions. The primary currencies to which Altria Group, Inc. is exposed include the Japanese yen, Swiss franc and the euro. At December 31, 2005 and 2004, Altria Group, Inc. had foreign exchange option and forward contracts with aggregate notional amounts of $4.8 billion and $9.7 billion, respectively. In addition, Altria Group, Inc. uses foreign currency swaps to mitigate its exposure to changes in exchange rates related to foreign currency denominated debt. These swaps typically convert fixed-rate foreign currency denominated debt to fixed-rate debt denominated in the functional currency of the borrowing entity. A substantial portion of the foreign currency swap agreements is accounted for as cash flow hedges. The unrealized gain (loss) relating to foreign currency swap agreements that do not qualify for hedge accounting treatment under U.S. GAAP was insignificant as of December 31, 2005 and 2004. At December 31, 2005 and 2004, the notional amounts of foreign currency swap agreements aggregated $2.3 billion and $2.7 billion, respectively. Aggregate maturities of foreign currency swap agreements at December 31, 2005, were $1.0 billion in 2006 and $1.3 billion in 2008.

 

Altria Group, Inc. also designates certain foreign currency denominated debt as net investment hedges of foreign operations. During the year ended

 

37


Exhibit 13

 

 

December 31, 2005, these hedges of net investments resulted in a gain, net of income taxes, of $369 million, and in the years ended December 31, 2004 and 2003, resulted in losses, net of income taxes, of $344 million and $286 million, respectively. These gains and losses were reported as a component of accumulated other comprehensive earnings (losses) within currency translation adjustments.

 

·   Commodities: Kraft is exposed to price risk related to forecasted purchases of certain commodities used as raw materials. Accordingly, Kraft uses commodity forward contracts as cash flow hedges, primarily for coffee and cocoa. Commodity futures and options are also used to hedge the price of certain commodities, including milk, coffee, cocoa, wheat, corn, sugar and soybean oil. At December 31, 2005 and 2004, Kraft had net long commodity positions of $521 million and $443 million, respectively. In general, commodity forward contracts qualify for the normal purchase exception under U.S. GAAP, and are therefore not subject to the provisions of SFAS No. 133. The effective portion of unrealized gains and losses on commodity futures and option contracts is deferred as a component of accumulated other comprehensive earnings (losses) and is recognized as a component of cost of sales when the related inventory is sold. Unrealized gains or losses on net commodity positions were immaterial at December 31, 2005 and 2004.

 

·   Value at Risk: Altria Group, Inc. uses a value at risk (“VAR”) computation to estimate the potential one-day loss in the fair value of its interest rate-sensitive financial instruments and to estimate the potential one-day loss in pre-tax earnings of its foreign currency and commodity price-sensitive derivative financial instruments. The VAR computation includes Altria Group, Inc.’s debt; short-term investments; foreign currency forwards, swaps and options; and commodity futures, forwards and options. Anticipated transactions, foreign currency trade payables and receivables, and net investments in foreign subsidiaries, which the foregoing instruments are intended to hedge, were excluded from the computation.

 

The VAR estimates were made assuming normal market conditions, using a 95% confidence interval. Altria Group, Inc. used a “variance/co-variance” model to determine the observed interrelationships between movements in interest rates and various currencies. These interrelationships were determined by observing interest rate and forward currency rate movements over the preceding quarter for the calculation of VAR amounts at December 31, 2005 and 2004, and over each of the four preceding quarters for the calculation of average VAR amounts during each year. The values of foreign currency and commodity options do not change on a one-to-one basis with the underlying currency or commodity, and were valued accordingly in the VAR computation.

 

The estimated potential one-day loss in fair value of Altria Group, Inc.’s interest rate-sensitive instruments, primarily debt, under normal market conditions and the estimated potential one-day loss in pre-tax earnings from foreign currency and commodity instruments under normal market conditions, as calculated in the VAR model, were as follows:

 

     Pre-Tax Earnings Impact

(in millions)


  

At

12/31/05


   Average

   High

   Low

Instruments sensitive to:

                           

Foreign currency rates

   $ 23    $ 21    $ 24    $ 19

Commodity prices

     7      6      12      3
    

  

  

  

     Fair Value Impact

(in millions)


  

At

12/31/05


   Average

   High

   Low

Instruments sensitive to:

                           

Interest rates

   $ 43    $ 63    $ 75    $ 43
    

  

  

  

     Pre-Tax Earnings Impact

(in millions)


  

At

12/31/04


   Average

   High

   Low

Instruments sensitive to:

                           

Foreign currency rates

   $ 16    $ 21    $ 35    $ 16

Commodity prices

     4      6      8      4
    

  

  

  

     Fair Value Impact

(in millions)


   At
12/31/04


   Average

   High

   Low

Instruments sensitive to:

                           

Interest rates

   $ 72    $ 96    $ 113    $ 72
    

  

  

  

 

The VAR computation is a risk analysis tool designed to statistically estimate the maximum probable daily loss from adverse movements in interest rates, foreign currency rates and commodity prices under normal market conditions. The computation does not purport to represent actual losses in fair value or earnings to be incurred by Altria Group, Inc., nor does it consider the effect of favorable changes in market rates. Altria Group, Inc. cannot predict actual future movements in such market rates and does not present these VAR results to be indicative of future movements in such market rates or to be representative of any actual impact that future changes in market rates may have on its future results of operations or financial position.

 

New Accounting Standards

 

See Note 2 to the consolidated financial statements for a discussion of new accounting standards.

 

Contingencies

 

See Note 19 to the consolidated financial statements for a discussion of contingencies.

 

38


Exhibit 13

 

 

Cautionary Factors That May Affect Future Results

 

Forward-Looking and Cautionary Statements

 

We* may from time to time make written or oral forward-looking statements, including statements contained in filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission, in reports to stockholders and in press releases and investor Webcasts. You can identify these forward-looking statements by use of words such as “strategy,” “expects,” “continues,” “plans,” “anticipates,” “believes,” “will,” “estimates,” “intends,” “projects,” “goals,” “targets” and other words of similar meaning. You can also identify them by the fact that they do not relate strictly to historical or current facts.

 

We cannot guarantee that any forward-looking statement will be realized, although we believe we have been prudent in our plans and assumptions. Achievement of future results is subject to risks, uncertainties and inaccurate assumptions. Should known or unknown risks or uncertainties materialize, or should underlying assumptions prove inaccurate, actual results could vary materially from those anticipated, estimated or projected. Investors should bear this in mind as they consider forward-looking statements and whether to invest in or remain invested in Altria Group, Inc.’s securities. In connection with the “safe harbor” provisions of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, we are identifying important factors that, individually or in the aggregate, could cause actual results and outcomes to differ materially from those contained in any forward-looking statements made by us; any such statement is qualified by reference to the following cautionary statements. We elaborate on these and other risks we face throughout this document, particularly in the “Business Environment” sections preceding our discussion of operating results of our subsidiaries’ businesses. You should understand that it is not possible to predict or identify all risk factors. Consequently, you should not consider the following to be a complete discussion of all potential risks or uncertainties. We do not undertake to update any forward-looking statement that we may make from time to time.

 

·   Tobacco-Related Litigation: There is substantial litigation related to tobacco products in the United States and certain foreign jurisdictions. We anticipate that new cases will continue to be filed. Damages claimed in some of the tobacco-related litigation range into the billions of dollars. There are presently 12 cases on appeal in which verdicts were returned against PM USA, including a compensatory and punitive damages verdict totaling approximately $10.1 billion in the Price case in Illinois, which was reversed by the Illinois Supreme Court in December 2005. Generally, in order to prevent a plaintiff from seeking to collect a judgment while the verdict is being appealed, the defendant must post an appeal bond or negotiate an alternative arrangement with plaintiffs. In the event of future losses at trial, we may not always be able to obtain the required bond or to negotiate an acceptable alternative arrangement.

 

The present litigation environment is substantially uncertain, and it is possible that our business, volume, results of operations, cash flows or financial position could be materially affected by an unfavorable outcome of pending litigation, including certain of the verdicts against us that are on appeal. We intend to continue vigorously defending all tobacco-related litigation, although we may enter into settlement discussions in particular cases if we believe it is in the best interest of our stockholders to do so. The entire litigation environment may not improve sufficiently to enable the Board of Directors to implement any contemplated restructuring alternatives. Please see Note 19 for a discussion of pending tobacco-related litigation.

 

·   Anti-Tobacco Action in the Public and Private Sectors: Our tobacco subsidiaries face significant governmental action aimed at reducing the incidence of smoking and seeking to hold us responsible for the adverse health effects associated with both smoking and exposure to environmental tobacco smoke. Governmental actions, combined with the diminishing social acceptance of smoking and private actions to restrict smoking, have resulted in reduced industry volume, and we expect this decline to continue.

 

·   Excise Taxes: Cigarettes are subject to substantial excise taxes in the United States and to substantial taxation abroad. Significant increases in cigarette-related taxes have been proposed or enacted and are likely to continue to be proposed or enacted within the United States, the EU and in other foreign jurisdictions. In addition, in certain jurisdictions, PMI’s products are subject to discriminatory tax structures, and inconsistent rulings and interpretations on complex methodologies to determine excise and other tax burdens.

 

Tax increases are expected to continue to have an adverse impact on sales of cigarettes by our tobacco subsidiaries, due to lower consumption levels and to a shift in consumer purchases from the premium to the non-premium or discount segments or to other low-priced or low-taxed tobacco products or to counterfeit or contraband products.

 

·   Increased Competition in the Domestic Tobacco Market: Settlements of certain tobacco litigation in the United States have resulted in substantial cigarette price increases. PM USA faces competition from lowest-priced brands sold by certain domestic and foreign manufacturers that have cost advantages because they are not parties to these settlements. These manufacturers may fail to comply with related state escrow legislation or may take advantage of certain provisions in the legislation that permit the non-settling manufacturers to concentrate their sales in a limited number of states and thereby avoid escrow deposit obligations on the majority of their sales. Additional competition has resulted from diversion into the United States market of cigarettes intended for sale outside the United States, the sale of counterfeit cigarettes by third parties, the sale of cigarettes by third parties over the Internet and by other means designed to avoid collection of applicable taxes and increased imports of foreign lowest-priced brands.

 

·   Governmental Investigations: From time to time, ALG and its tobacco subsidiaries are subject to governmental investigations on a range of matters. Ongoing investigations include allegations of contraband shipments of cigarettes and allegations of unlawful pricing activities within certain international markets. We cannot predict the outcome of those investigations or whether additional investigations may be commenced, and it is possible that our business could be materially affected by an unfavorable outcome of pending or future investigations.

 

·   New Tobacco Product Technologies: Our tobacco subsidiaries continue to seek ways to develop and to commercialize new product technologies that have the objective of reducing constituents in tobacco smoke identified by public health authorities as harmful while continuing to offer adult smokers products that meet their taste expectations. We cannot guarantee that our tobacco subsidiaries will succeed in these efforts. If they do not succeed, but one or more of their competitors do, our tobacco subsidiaries may be at a competitive disadvantage.

 


 

* This section uses the terms “we,” “our” and “us” when it is not necessary to distinguish among ALG and its various operating subsidiaries or when any distinction is clear from the context.

 

39


Exhibit 13

 

 

·   Foreign Currency: Our international food and tobacco subsidiaries conduct their businesses in local currency and, for purposes of financial reporting, their results are translated into U.S. dollars based on average exchange rates prevailing during a reporting period. During times of a strengthening U.S. dollar, our reported net revenues and operating income will be reduced because the local currency will translate into fewer U.S. dollars.

 

·   Competition and Economic Downturns: Each of our consumer products subsidiaries is subject to intense competition, changes in consumer preferences and local economic conditions. To be successful, they must continue to:

 

    promote brand equity successfully;

 

    anticipate and respond to new consumer trends;

 

    develop new products and markets and to broaden brand portfolios in order to compete effectively with lower-priced products;

 

    improve productivity; and

 

    respond effectively to changing prices for their raw materials.

 

The willingness of consumers to purchase premium cigarette brands and premium food and beverage brands depends in part on local economic conditions. In periods of economic uncertainty, consumers tend to purchase more private label and other economy brands, and the volume of our consumer products subsidiaries could suffer accordingly.

 

Our finance subsidiary, PMCC, holds investments in finance leases, principally in transportation (including aircraft), power generation and manufacturing equipment and facilities. Its lessees are also subject to intense competition and economic conditions. If counterparties to PMCC’s leases fail to manage through difficult economic and competitive conditions, PMCC may have to increase its allowance for losses, which would adversely affect our profitability.

 

·   Grocery Trade Consolidation: As the retail grocery trade continues to consolidate and retailers grow larger and become more sophisticated, they demand lower pricing and increased promotional programs. Further, these customers are reducing their inventories and increasing their emphasis on private label products. If Kraft fails to use its scale, marketing expertise, branded products and category leadership positions to respond to these trends, its volume growth could slow or it may need to lower prices or increase promotional support of its products, any of which would adversely affect our profitability.

 

·   Continued Need to Add Food and Beverage Products in Faster-Growing and More Profitable Categories: The food and beverage industry’s growth potential is constrained by population growth. Kraft’s success depends in part on its ability to grow its business faster than populations are growing in the markets that it serves. One way to achieve that growth is to enhance its portfolio by adding products that are in faster-growing and more profitable categories. If Kraft does not succeed in making these enhancements, its volume growth may slow, which would adversely affect our profitability.

 

·    Strengthening Brand Portfolios Through Acquisitions and Divestitures: One element of the growth strategy of our consumer products subsidiaries is to strengthen their brand portfolios through active programs of selective acquisitions and divestitures. These subsidiaries are constantly investigating potential acquisition candidates and from time to time Kraft sells businesses that are outside its core categories or that do not meet its growth or profitability targets. Acquisition opportunities are limited and acquisitions present risks of failing to achieve efficient and effective integration, strategic objectives and anticipated revenue improvements and cost savings. There can be no assurance that we will be able to continue to acquire attractive businesses on favorable terms or that all future acquisitions will be quickly accretive to earnings.

 

·   Food Raw Material Prices: The raw materials used by our food businesses are largely commodities that experience price volatility caused by external conditions, commodity market fluctuations, currency fluctuations and changes in governmental agricultural programs. Commodity price changes may result in unexpected increases in raw material and packaging costs (which are significantly affected by oil costs), and our operating subsidiaries may be unable to increase their prices to offset these increased costs without suffering reduced volume, net revenues and operating companies income. We do not fully hedge against changes in commodity prices and our hedging strategies may not work as planned.

 

·   Food Safety, Quality and Health Concerns: We could be adversely affected if consumers in Kraft’s principal markets lose confidence in the safety and quality of certain food products. Adverse publicity about these types of concerns, whether or not valid, may discourage consumers from buying Kraft’s products or cause production and delivery disruptions. Recent publicity concerning the health implications of obesity and trans-fatty acids could also reduce consumption of certain of Kraft’s products. In addition, Kraft may need to recall some of its products if they become adulterated or misbranded. Kraft may also be liable if the consumption of any of its products causes injury. A widespread product recall or a significant product liability judgment could cause products to be unavailable for a period of time and a loss of consumer confidence in Kraft’s food products and could have a material adverse effect on Kraft’s business and results.

 

·   Limited Access to Commercial Paper Market: As a result of actions by credit rating agencies during 2003, ALG currently has limited access to the commercial paper market, and may have to rely on its revolving credit facilities.

 

·   Asset Impairment: We periodically calculate the fair value of our goodwill and intangible assets to test for impairment. This calculation may be affected by the market conditions noted above, as well as interest rates and general economic conditions. If an impairment is determined to exist, we will incur impairment losses, which will reduce our earnings.

 

·   IRS Challenges to PMCC Leases: Recently, the IRS has proposed to disallow certain transactions, and may in the future challenge and disallow several more, of PMCC’s leveraged leases based on recent Revenue Rulings and a recent IRS Notice addressing specific types of leveraged leases (lease-in/lease-out transactions, qualified technological equipment transactions, and sale-in/lease-out transactions). PMCC believes that the position and supporting case law described in the Revenue Rulings and the IRS Notice, as well as those asserted in the proposed adjustments, are incorrectly applied to PMCC’s transactions and that its leveraged leases are factually and legally distinguishable in material respects from the IRS’s position. PMCC and ALG intend to vigorously defend against any challenges based on that position through administrative appeals and litigation, if necessary, and ALG believes that, given the strength of PMCC’s position, it should ultimately prevail. However, should PMCC’s position not be upheld, PMCC may have to accelerate the payment of significant amounts of federal income tax and lower its earnings to reflect the recalculation of the income from the affected leveraged leases.

 

40


Exhibit 13

 

 

Selected Financial Data–Five-Year Review

(in millions of dollars, except per share data)

 

        2005

    2004

    2003

    2002

    2001

 

Summary of Operations:

                                       

Net revenues

  $ 97,854     $ 89,610     $ 81,320     $ 79,933     $ 80,376  

United States export sales

    3,630       3,493       3,528       3,654       3,866  

Cost of sales

    36,764       33,959       31,573       32,491       33,644  

Federal excise taxes on products

    3,659       3,694       3,698       4,229       4,418  

Foreign excise taxes on products

    25,275       21,953       17,430       13,997       12,791  
   


 


 


 


 


Operating income

    16,592       15,180       15,759       16,448       15,535  

Interest and other debt expense, net

    1,157       1,176       1,150       1,134       1,418  

Earnings from continuing operations before income taxes, minority interest, equity earnings, net, and cumulative effect of accounting change

    15,435       14,004       14,609       17,945       14,117  

Pre-tax profit margin from continuing operations

    15.8 %     15.6 %     18.0 %     22.5 %     17.6 %

Provision for income taxes

    4,618       4,540       5,097       6,368       5,326  
   


 


 


 


 


Earnings from continuing operations before minority interest, equity earnings, net, and cumulative effect of accounting change

    10,817       9,464       9,512       11,577       8,791  

Minority interest in earnings from continuing operations, and equity earnings, net

    149       44       391       556       302  

Earnings from continuing operations before cumulative effect of accounting change

    10,668       9,420       9,121       11,021       8,489  

(Loss) earnings from discontinued operations, net of income taxes and minority interest

    (233 )     (4 )     83       81       77  

Cumulative effect of accounting change

                                    (6 )

Net earnings

    10,435       9,416       9,204       11,102       8,560  
       


 


 


 


 


Basic earnings per share

 

– continuing operations

    5.15       4.60       4.50       5.22       3.89  
   

– discontinued operations

    (0.11 )             0.04       0.04       0.04  
   

– cumulative effect of accounting change

                                    (0.01 )
   

– net earnings

    5.04       4.60       4.54       5.26       3.92  

Diluted earnings per share

 

– continuing operations

    5.10       4.57       4.48       5.18       3.84  
   

– discontinued operations

    (0.11 )     (0.01 )     0.04       0.03       0.04  
   

– cumulative effect of accounting change

                                    (0.01 )
   

– net earnings

    4.99       4.56       4.52       5.21       3.87  

Dividends declared per share

    3.06       2.82       2.64       2.44       2.22  

Weighted average shares (millions) – Basic

    2,070       2,047       2,028       2,111       2,181  

Weighted average shares (millions) – Diluted

    2,090       2,063       2,038       2,129       2,210  
   


 


 


 


 


Capital expenditures

    2,206       1,913       1,974       2,009       1,922  

Depreciation

    1,647       1,590       1,431       1,324       1,323  

Property, plant and equipment, net (consumer products)

    16,678       16,305       16,067       14,846       15,137  

Inventories (consumer products)

    10,584       10,041       9,540       9,127       8,923  

Total assets

    107,949       101,648       96,175       87,540       84,968  

Total long-term debt

    17,667       18,683       21,163       21,355       18,651  

Total debt – consumer products

    21,919       20,759       22,329       21,154       20,098  

                 – financial services

    2,014       2,221       2,210       2,166       2,004  
   


 


 


 


 


Stockholders’ equity

    35,707       30,714       25,077       19,478       19,620  

Common dividends declared as a % of Basic EPS

    60.7 %     61.3 %     58.1 %     46.4 %     56.6 %

Common dividends declared as a % of Diluted EPS

    61.3 %     61.8 %     58.4 %     46.8 %     57.4 %

Book value per common share outstanding

    17.13       14.91       12.31       9.55       9.11  

Market price per common share – high/low

    78.68-60.40       61.88-44.50       55.03-27.70       57.79-35.40       53.88-38.75  
       


 


 


 


 


Closing price of common share at year end

    74.72       61.10       54.42       40.53       45.85  

Price/earnings ratio at year end – Basic

    15       13       12       8       12  

Price/earnings ratio at year end – Diluted

    15       13       12       8       12  

Number of common shares outstanding at year end (millions)

    2,084       2,060       2,037       2,039       2,153  

Number of employees

    199,000       156,000       165,000       166,000       175,000  
       


 


 


 


 


 

41


Exhibit 13

 

 

Consolidated Balance Sheets

(in millions of dollars, except share and per share data)

 

at December 31,      


   2005

   2004

Assets

             

Consumer products

             

Cash and cash equivalents

   $ 6,258    $ 5,744

Receivables (less allowances of $112 in 2005 and $139 in 2004)

     5,361      5,754

Inventories:

             

Leaf tobacco

     4,060      3,643

Other raw materials

     2,232      2,170

Finished product

     4,292      4,228
    

  

       10,584      10,041

Assets of discontinued operations held for sale

            1,458

Other current assets

     3,578      2,904
    

  

Total current assets

     25,781      25,901

Property, plant and equipment, at cost:

             

Land and land improvements

     989      889

Buildings and building equipment

     7,428      7,366

Machinery and equipment

     20,050      19,566

Construction in progress

     1,489      1,266
    

  

       29,956      29,087

Less accumulated depreciation

     13,278      12,782
    

  

       16,678      16,305

Goodwill

     31,219      28,056

Other intangible assets, net

     12,196      11,056

Other assets

     14,667      12,485
    

  

Total consumer products assets

     100,541      93,803

Financial services

             

Finance assets, net

     7,189      7,827

Other assets

     219      18
    

  

Total financial services assets

     7,408      7,845
    

  

Total Assets

   $ 107,949    $ 101,648
    

  

 

See notes to consolidated financial statements.

 

42


Exhibit 13

 

 

at December 31,    


   2005

    2004

 

Liabilities

                

Consumer products

                

Short-term borrowings

   $ 2,836     $ 2,546  

Current portion of long-term debt

     3,430       1,751  

Accounts payable

     3,645       3,466  

Accrued liabilities:

                

Marketing

     2,382       2,516  

Taxes, except income taxes

     2,871       2,909  

Employment costs

     1,296       1,325  

Settlement charges

     3,503       3,501  

Other

     3,130       3,072  

Income taxes

     1,393       983  

Dividends payable

     1,672       1,505  
    


 


Total current liabilities

     26,158       23,574  

Long-term debt

     15,653       16,462  

Deferred income taxes

     8,492       8,295  

Accrued postretirement health care costs

     3,412       3,285  

Minority interest

     4,141       4,764  

Other liabilities

     6,260       6,238  
    


 


Total consumer products liabilities

     64,116       62,618  

Financial services

                

Long-term debt

     2,014       2,221  

Non-recourse debt

     201       112  

Deferred income taxes

     5,737       5,876  

Other liabilities

     174       107  
    


 


Total financial services liabilities

     8,126       8,316  
    


 


Total liabilities

     72,242       70,934  
    


 


Contingencies (Note 19)

                

Stockholders’ Equity

                

Common stock, par value $0.33 1/3 per share
(2,805,961,317 shares issued)

     935       935  

Additional paid-in capital

     6,061       5,176  

Earnings reinvested in the business

     54,666       50,595  

Accumulated other comprehensive losses
(including currency translation of ($1,317) in 2005 and ($610) in 2004)

     (1,853 )     (1,141 )

Cost of repurchased stock
(721,696,918 shares in 2005 and 746,433,841 shares in 2004)

     (24,102 )     (24,851 )
    


 


Total stockholders’ equity

     35,707       30,714  
    


 


Total Liabilities And Stockholders’ Equity

   $ 107,949     $ 101,648  
    


 


 

43


Exhibit 13

 

 

Consolidated Statements of Earnings

(in millions of dollars, except per share data)

 

for the years ended December 31,            


   2005

    2004

    2003

 

Net revenues

   $ 97,854     $ 89,610     $ 81,320  

Cost of sales

     36,764       33,959       31,573  

Excise taxes on products

     28,934       25,647       21,128  
    


 


 


Gross profit

     32,156       30,004       28,619  

Marketing, administration and research costs

     14,799       13,665       12,525  

Domestic tobacco headquarters relocation charges

     4       31       69  

Domestic tobacco loss on U.S. tobacco pool

     138                  

Domestic tobacco quota buy-out

     (115 )                

Domestic tobacco legal settlement

                     202  

International tobacco E.C. agreement

             250          

Asset impairment and exit costs

     618       718       86  

(Gains) losses on sales of businesses, net

     (108 )     3       (31 )

Provision for airline industry exposure

     200       140          

Amortization of intangibles

     28       17       9  
    


 


 


Operating income

     16,592       15,180       15,759  

Interest and other debt expense, net

     1,157       1,176       1,150  
    


 


 


Earnings from continuing operations before income taxes, minority interest, and equity earnings, net

     15,435       14,004       14,609  

Provision for income taxes

     4,618       4,540       5,097  
    


 


 


Earnings from continuing operations before minority interest, and equity earnings, net

     10,817       9,464       9,512  

Minority interest in earnings from continuing operations, and equity earnings, net

     149       44       391  
    


 


 


Earnings from continuing operations

     10,668       9,420       9,121  

(Loss) earnings from discontinued operations, net of income taxes and minority interest

     (233 )     (4 )     83  
    


 


 


Net earnings

   $ 10,435     $ 9,416     $ 9,204  
    


 


 


Per share data:

                        

Basic earnings per share:

                        

Continuing operations

   $ 5.15     $ 4.60     $ 4.50  

Discontinued operations

     (0.11 )             0.04  
    


 


 


Net earnings

   $ 5.04     $ 4.60     $ 4.54  
    


 


 


Diluted earnings per share:

                        

Continuing operations

   $ 5.10     $ 4.57     $ 4.48  

Discontinued operations

     (0.11 )     (0.01 )     0.04  
    


 


 


Net earnings

   $ 4.99     $ 4.56     $ 4.52  
    


 


 


 

See notes to consolidated financial statements.

 

44


Exhibit 13

 

 

Consolidated Statements of Stockholders’ Equity

(in millions of dollars, except per share data)

 

     Common
Stock


   Additional
Paid-in
Capital


   Earnings
Reinvested in
the Business


    Accumulated Other     Cost of
Repurchased
Stock


    Total
Stockholders’
Equity


 
           Comprehensive Earnings (Losses)

     
           Currency
Translation
Adjustments


    Other

    Total

     

Balances, January 1, 2003

   $ 935    $ 4,642    $ 43,259     $ (2,951 )   $ (1,005 )   $ (3,956 )   $ (25,402 )   $ 19,478  

Comprehensive earnings:

                                                              

Net earnings

                   9,204                                       9,204  

Other comprehensive earnings (losses), net of income taxes:

                                                              

Currency translation adjustments

                           1,373               1,373               1,373  

Additional minimum pension liability

                                   464       464               464  

Change in fair value of derivatives accounted for as hedges

                                   (6 )     (6 )             (6 )
                                                          


Total other comprehensive earnings

                                                           1,831  
                                                          


Total comprehensive earnings

                                                           11,035  
                                                          


Exercise of stock options and issuance of other stock awards

            171      (93 )                             537       615  

Cash dividends declared ($2.64 per share)

                   (5,362 )                                     (5,362 )

Stock repurchased

                                                   (689 )     (689 )
    

  

  


 


 


 


 


 


Balances, December 31, 2003

     935      4,813      47,008       (1,578 )     (547 )     (2,125 )     (25,554 )     25,077  

Comprehensive earnings:

                                                              

Net earnings

                   9,416                                       9,416  

Other comprehensive earnings (losses), net of income taxes:

                                                              

Currency translation adjustments

                           968               968               968  

Additional minimum pension liability

                                   (53 )     (53 )             (53 )

Change in fair value of derivatives accounted for as hedges

                                   69       69               69  
                                                          


Total other comprehensive earnings

                                                           984  
                                                          


Total comprehensive earnings

                                                           10,400  
                                                          


Exercise of stock options and issuance of other stock awards

            363      (39 )                             703       1,027  

Cash dividends declared ($2.82 per share)

                   (5,790 )                                     (5,790 )
    

  

  


 


 


 


 


 


Balances, December 31, 2004

     935      5,176      50,595       (610 )     (531 )     (1,141 )     (24,851 )     30,714  

Comprehensive earnings:

                                                              

Net earnings

                   10,435                                       10,435  

Other comprehensive earnings (losses), net of income taxes:

                                                              

Currency translation adjustments

                           (707 )             (707 )             (707 )

Additional minimum pension liability

                                   (54 )     (54 )             (54 )

Change in fair value of derivatives accounted for as hedges

                                   38       38               38  

Other

                                   11       11               11  
                                                          


Total other comprehensive losses

                                                           (712 )
                                                          


Total comprehensive earnings

                                                           9,723  
                                                          


Exercise of stock options and issuance of other stock awards

            519      (6 )                             749       1,262  

Cash dividends declared ($3.06 per share)

                   (6,358 )                                     (6,358 )
                                                                

Other

            366                                              366  
    

  

  


 


 


 


 


 


Balances, December 31, 2005

   $ 935    $ 6,061    $ 54,666     $ (1,317 )   $ (536 )   $ (1,853 )   $ (24,102 )   $ 35,707  
    

  

  


 


 


 


 


 


 

See notes to consolidated financial statements.

 

45


Exhibit 13

 

 

Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows

(in millions of dollars)

 

for the years ended December 31,            


   2005

    2004

    2003

 

Cash Provided By (Used in) Operating Activities

                        

Net earnings – Consumer products

   $ 10,418     $ 9,330     $ 8,934  

  – Financial services

     17       86       270  
    


 


 


Net earnings

     10,435       9,416       9,204  

Adjustments to reconcile net earnings to operating cash flows:

                        

Consumer products

                        

Depreciation and amortization

     1,675       1,607       1,440  

Deferred income tax (benefit) provision

     (863 )     381       717  

Minority interest in earnings from continuing operations, and equity earnings, net

     149       44       405  

Domestic tobacco legal settlement, net of cash paid

             (57 )     57  

Domestic tobacco headquarters relocation charges, net of cash paid

     (9 )     (22 )     35  

Domestic tobacco quota buy-out

     (115 )                

Escrow bond for the Price domestic tobacco case

     (420 )     (820 )     (610 )

Integration costs, net of cash paid

     (1 )     (1 )     (26 )

Asset impairment and exit costs, net of cash paid

     382       510       62  

Impairment loss on discontinued operations

             107          

Loss on sale of discontinued operations

     32                  

(Gains) losses on sales of businesses, net

     (108 )     3       (31 )

Cash effects of changes, net of the effects from acquired and divested companies:

                        

Receivables, net

     253       (193 )     295  

Inventories

     (524 )     (140 )     251  

Accounts payable

     27       49       (220 )

Income taxes

     203       (502 )     (119 )

Accrued liabilities and other current assets

     (555 )     785       (588 )

Domestic tobacco accrued settlement charges

     (30 )     (31 )     497  

Pension plan contributions

     (1,234 )     (1,078 )     (1,183 )

Pension provisions and postretirement, net

     793       425       278  

Other

     874       314       33  

Financial services

                        

Deferred income tax (benefit) provision

     (126 )     7       267  

Provision for airline industry exposure

     200       140          

Other

     22       (54 )     52  
    


 


 


Net cash provided by operating activities

     11,060       10,890       10,816  
    


 


 


Cash Provided By (Used in) Investing Activities

                        

Consumer products

                        

Capital expenditures

   $ (2,206 )   $ (1,913 )   $ (1,974 )

Purchase of businesses, net of acquired cash

     (4,932 )     (179 )     (1,041 )

Proceeds from sales of businesses

     1,668       18       96  

Other

     112       24       125  

Financial services

                        

Investments in finance assets

     (3 )     (10 )     (140 )

Proceeds from finance assets

     476       644       507  
    


 


 


Net cash used in investing activities

     (4,885 )     (1,416 )     (2,427 )
    


 


 


 

See notes to consolidated financial statements.

 

46


Exhibit 13

 

 

for the years ended December 31,        


   2005

    2004

    2003

 

Cash Provided By (Used in) Financing Activities

                        

Consumer products

                        

Net issuance (repayment) of short-term borrowings

     3,114       (1,090 )     (419 )

Long-term debt proceeds

     69       833       3,077  

Long-term debt repaid

     (1,779 )     (1,594 )     (1,871 )

Financial services

                        

Long-term debt repaid

             (189 )     (147 )

Repurchase of Altria Group, Inc. common stock

                     (777 )

Repurchase of Kraft Foods Inc. common stock

     (1,175 )     (688 )     (372 )

Dividends paid on Altria Group, Inc. common stock

     (6,191 )     (5,672 )     (5,285 )

Issuance of Altria Group, Inc. common stock

     985       827       443  

Other

     (157 )     (409 )     (108 )
    


 


 


Net cash used in financing activities

     (5,134 )     (7,982 )     (5,459 )
    


 


 


Effect of exchange rate changes on cash and cash equivalents

     (527 )     475       282  
    


 


 


Cash and cash equivalents:

                        

Increase

     514       1,967       3,212  

Balance at beginning of year

     5,744       3,777       565  
    


 


 


Balance at end of year

   $ 6,258     $ 5,744     $ 3,777  
    


 


 


Cash paid:    Interest – Consumer products

   $ 1,628     $ 1,397     $ 1,336  
    


 


 


     – Financial services

   $ 106     $ 97     $ 120  
    


 


 


  Income taxes

   $ 5,397     $ 4,448     $ 4,158  
    


 


 


 

47


Exhibit 13

 

 

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

 

Note 1.

 

Background and Basis of Presentation:

 

·   Background: Throughout these financial statements, the term “Altria Group, Inc.” refers to the consolidated financial position, results of operations and cash flows of the Altria family of companies, and the term “ALG” refers solely to the parent company. ALG’s wholly-owned subsidiaries, Philip Morris USA Inc. (“PM USA”) and Philip Morris International Inc. (“PMI”), and its majority-owned (87.2% as of December 31, 2005) subsidiary, Kraft Foods Inc. (“Kraft”), are engaged in the manufacture and sale of various consumer products, including cigarettes and other tobacco products, packaged grocery products, snacks, beverages, cheese and convenient meals. Philip Morris Capital Corporation (“PMCC”), another wholly-owned subsidiary, maintains a portfolio of leveraged and direct finance leases. In addition, ALG had a 28.7% economic interest in SABMiller plc (“SABMiller”) as of December 31, 2005. ALG’s access to the operating cash flows of its subsidiaries consists of cash received from the payment of dividends and interest, and the repayment of amounts borrowed from ALG by its subsidiaries.

 

In June 2005, Kraft sold substantially all of its sugar confectionery business for pre-tax proceeds of approximately $1.4 billion. Altria Group, Inc. has reflected the results of Kraft’s sugar confectionery business prior to the closing date as discontinued operations on the consolidated statements of earnings for all years presented. The assets related to the sugar confectionery business were reflected as assets of discontinued operations held for sale on the consolidated balance sheet at December 31, 2004.

 

·   Basis of presentation: The consolidated financial statements include ALG, as well as its wholly-owned and majority-owned subsidiaries. Investments in which ALG exercises significant influence (20%-50% ownership interest), are accounted for under the equity method of accounting. Investments in which ALG has an ownership interest of less than 20%, or does not exercise significant influence, are accounted for with the cost method of accounting. All intercompany transactions and balances have been eliminated.

 

The preparation of financial statements in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (“U.S. GAAP”) requires management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities, the disclosure of contingent liabilities at the dates of the financial statements and the reported amounts of net revenues and expenses during the reporting periods. Significant estimates and assumptions include, among other things, pension and benefit plan assumptions, lives and valuation assumptions of goodwill and other intangible assets, marketing programs, income taxes, and the allowance for loan losses and estimated residual values of finance leases. Actual results could differ from those estimates.

 

Balance sheet accounts are segregated by two broad types of business. Consumer products assets and liabilities are classified as either current or non-current, whereas financial services assets and liabilities are unclassified, in accordance with respective industry practices.

 

Kraft’s operating subsidiaries generally report year-end results as of the Saturday closest to the end of each year. This resulted in fifty-three weeks of operating results for Kraft in the consolidated statement of earnings for the year ended December 31, 2005, versus fifty-two weeks for the years ended December 31, 2004 and 2003.

 

As discussed in Note 14. Income Taxes , classification of certain prior years’ amounts have been revised to conform with the current year’s presentation.

 

Note 2.

 

Summary of Significant Accounting Policies:

 

·    Cash and cash equivalents: Cash equivalents include demand deposits with banks and all highly liquid investments with original maturities of three months or less.

 

·    Depreciation, amortization and goodwill valuation: Property, plant and equipment are stated at historical cost and depreciated by the straight-line method over the estimated useful lives of the assets. Machinery and equipment are depreciated over periods ranging from 3 to 20 years, and buildings and building improvements over periods up to 50 years.

 

    Definite life intangible assets are amortized over their estimated useful lives. Altria Group, Inc. is required to conduct an annual review of goodwill and intangible assets for potential impairment. Goodwill impairment testing requires a comparison between the carrying value and fair value of each reporting unit. If the carrying value exceeds the fair value, goodwill is considered impaired. The amount of impairment loss is measured as the difference between the carrying value and implied fair value of goodwill, which is determined using discounted cash flows. Impairment testing for non-amortizable intangible assets requires a comparison between the fair value and carrying value of the intangible asset. If the carrying value exceeds fair value, the intangible asset is considered impaired and is reduced to fair value. During 2005, Altria Group, Inc. completed its annual review of goodwill and intangible assets, and no charges resulted from this review. However, as part of the sale or pending sale of certain Canadian assets and two brands, Kraft recorded total non-cash pre-tax asset impairment charges of $269 million in 2005, which included impairment of goodwill and intangible assets of $13 million and $118 million, respectively, as well as $138 million of asset write-downs. The 2004 review of goodwill and intangible assets resulted in a $29 million non-cash pre-tax charge at Kraft related to an intangible asset impairment for a small confectionery business in the United States and certain brands in Mexico. A portion of this charge, $12 million, was recorded as asset impairment and exit costs on the consolidated statement of earnings. The remainder of the charge, $17 million, was included in discontinued operations.

 

Goodwill by segment was as follows:

 

(in millions)    


   December 31,
2005


   December 31,
2004


International tobacco

   $ 5,571    $ 2,222

North American food

     20,803      20,511

International food

     4,845      5,323
    

  

Total goodwill

   $ 31,219    $ 28,056
    

  

 

48


Exhibit 13

 

 

Intangible assets were as follows :

 

     December 31, 2005

   December 31, 2004

(in millions)                


  

Gross

Carrying

Amount


   Accumulated
Amortization


  

Gross

Carrying

Amount


   Accumulated
Amortization


Non-amortizable intangible assets

   $ 11,867           $ 10,901       

Amortizable intangible assets

     410    $ 81      212    $ 57
    

  

  

  

Total intangible assets

   $ 12,277    $ 81    $ 11,113    $ 57
    

  

  

  

 

Non-amortizable intangible assets substantially consist of brand names from Kraft’s acquisition of Nabisco Holdings Corp. (“Nabisco”) in 2000 and PMI’s 2005 acquisition in Indonesia. Amortizable intangible assets consist primarily of certain trademark licenses and non-compete agreements. Pre-tax amortization expense for intangible assets during the years ended December 31, 2005, 2004 and 2003, was $28 million, $17 million and $9 million, respectively. Amortization expense for each of the next five years is estimated to be $30 million or less, assuming no additional transactions occur that require the amortization of intangible assets.

 

The movement in goodwill and gross carrying amount of intangible assets is as follows:

 

     2005

    2004

 

(in millions)                


   Goodwill

   

Intangible

Assets


    Goodwill

   

Intangible

Assets


 

Balance at January 1

   $ 28,056     $ 11,113     $ 27,742     $ 11,842  

Changes due to:

                                

Divestitures

     (18 )                        

Acquisitions

     3,707       1,346       90       74  

Reclassification to assets held for sale

                     (814 )     (485 )

Currency

     (866 )     (64 )     640       3  

Asset impairment

     (13 )     (118 )             (29 )

Other

     353               398       (292 )
    


 


 


 


Balance at December 31

   $ 31,219     $ 12,277     $ 28,056     $ 11,113  
    


 


 


 


 

As a result of Kraft’s common stock repurchases, ALG’s ownership percentage of Kraft has increased from 85.4% at December 31, 2004 to 87.2% at December 31, 2005, thereby resulting in an increase in goodwill. Other, above, includes this additional goodwill, as well as the 2004 reclassification to goodwill of certain amounts previously classified as indefinite life intangible assets, and 2004 tax adjustments related to the Nabisco acquisition. The increase in goodwill and intangible assets from acquisitions during 2005 is related to preliminary allocations of purchase price for PMI’s acquisitions in Indonesia and Colombia. The allocations are based upon preliminary estimates and assumptions and are subject to revision when appraisals are finalized, which will be in the first half of 2006.

 

·    Environmental costs: Altria Group, Inc. is subject to laws and regulations relating to the protection of the environment. Altria Group, Inc. provides for expenses associated with environmental remediation obligations on an undiscounted basis when such amounts are probable and can be reasonably estimated. Such accruals are adjusted as new information develops or circumstances change.

 

While it is not possible to quantify with certainty the potential impact of actions regarding environmental remediation and compliance efforts that Altria Group, Inc. may undertake in the future, in the opinion of management, environmental remediation and compliance costs, before taking into account any recoveries from third parties, will not have a material adverse effect on Altria Group, Inc.’s consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

 

·    Finance leases: Income attributable to leveraged leases is initially recorded as unearned income and subsequently recognized as revenue over the terms of the respective leases at constant after-tax rates of return on the positive net investment balances. Investments in leveraged leases are stated net of related nonrecourse debt obligations.

 

Income attributable to direct finance leases is initially recorded as unearned income and subsequently recognized as revenue over the terms of the respective leases at constant pre-tax rates of return on the net investment balances.

 

Finance leases include unguaranteed residual values that represent PMCC’s estimates at lease inception as to the fair values of assets under lease at the end of the non-cancelable lease terms. The estimated residual values are reviewed annually by PMCC’s management based on a number of factors and activity in the relevant industry. If necessary, revisions are recorded to reduce the residual values. Such reviews resulted in no adjustments in 2005 and a decrease of $25 million to PMCC’s net revenues and results of operations in 2004. There were also no adjustments in 2003.

 

·    Foreign currency translation: Altria Group, Inc. translates the results of operations of its foreign subsidiaries using average exchange rates during each period, whereas balance sheet accounts are translated using exchange rates at the end of each period. Currency translation adjustments are recorded as a component of stockholders’ equity. Transaction gains and losses are recorded in the consolidated statements of earnings and were not significant for any of the periods presented.

 

·    Guarantees: Altria Group, Inc. accounts for guarantees in accordance with Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) Interpretation No. 45, “Guarantor’s Accounting and Disclosure Requirements for Guarantees, Including Indirect Guarantees of Indebtedness of Others.” Interpretation No. 45 requires the disclosure of certain guarantees and requires the recognition of a liability for the fair value of the obligation of qualifying guarantee activities. See Note 19. Contingencies for a further discussion of guarantees.

 

·    Hedging instruments: Derivative financial instruments are recorded at fair value on the consolidated balance sheets as either assets or liabilities. Changes in the fair value of derivatives are recorded each period either in accumulated other comprehensive earnings (losses) or in earnings, depending on whether a derivative is designated and effective as part of a hedge transaction and, if it is, the type of hedge transaction. Gains and losses on derivative instruments reported in accumulated other comprehensive earnings (losses) are reclassified to the consolidated statements of earnings in the periods in which operating results are affected by the hedged item. Cash flows from hedging instruments are classified in the same manner as the affected hedged item in the consolidated statements of cash flows.

 

·    Impairment of long-lived assets: Altria Group, Inc. reviews long-lived assets, including amortizable intangible assets, for impairment whenever events or changes in business circumstances indicate that the carrying amount of the assets may not be fully recoverable. Altria Group, Inc. performs undiscounted operating cash flow analyses to determine if an impairment

 

49


Exhibit 13

 

 

exists. For purposes of recognition and measurement of an impairment for assets held for use, Altria Group, Inc. groups assets and liabilities at the lowest level for which cash flows are separately identifiable. If an impairment is determined to exist, any related impairment loss is calculated based on fair value. Impairment losses on assets to be disposed of, if any, are based on the estimated proceeds to be received, less costs of disposal.

 

·    Income taxes: Altria Group, Inc. accounts for income taxes in accordance with Statement of Financial Accounting Standards (“SFAS”) No. 109, “Accounting for Income Taxes.” Under SFAS No. 109, deferred tax assets and liabilities are determined based on the difference between the financial statement and tax bases of assets and liabilities, using enacted tax rates in effect for the year in which the differences are expected to reverse. Significant judgment is required in determining income tax provisions and in evaluating tax positions. ALG and its subsidiaries establish additional provisions for income taxes when, despite the belief that their tax positions are fully supportable, there remain certain positions that are likely to be challenged and that may not be sustained on review by tax authorities. Upon the closure of current and future tax audits in various jurisdictions, significant income tax accrual reversals could continue to occur in 2006. ALG and its subsidiaries evaluate and potentially adjust these accruals in light of changing facts and circumstances. The consolidated tax provision includes the impact of changes to accruals that are considered appropriate.

 

·    Inventories: Inventories are stated at the lower of cost or market. The last-in, first-out (“LIFO”) method is used to cost substantially all domestic inventories. The cost of other inventories is principally determined by the average cost method. It is a generally recognized industry practice to classify leaf tobacco inventory as a current asset although part of such inventory, because of the duration of the aging process, ordinarily would not be utilized within one year.

 

In 2004, the FASB issued SFAS No. 151, “Inventory Costs.” SFAS No. 151 requires that abnormal idle facility expense, spoilage, freight and handling costs be recognized as current-period charges. In addition, SFAS No. 151 requires that allocation of fixed production overhead costs to inventories be based on the normal capacity of the production facility. Altria Group, Inc. is required to adopt the provisions of SFAS No. 151 prospectively as of January 1, 2006, but the effect of adoption will not have a material impact on its consolidated results of operations, financial position or cash flows.

 

·    Marketing costs: ALG’s subsidiaries promote their products with advertising, consumer incentives and trade promotions. Such programs include, but are not limited to, discounts, coupons, rebates, in-store display incentives and volume-based incentives. Advertising costs are expensed as incurred. Consumer incentive and trade promotion activities are recorded as a reduction of revenues based on amounts estimated as being due to customers and consumers at the end of a period, based principally on historical utilization and redemption rates. For interim reporting purposes, advertising and certain consumer incentive expenses are charged to operations as a percentage of sales, based on estimated sales and related expenses for the full year.

 

·    Revenue recognition: The consumer products businesses recognize revenues, net of sales incentives and including shipping and handling charges billed to customers, upon shipment or delivery of goods when title and risk of loss pass to customers. ALG’s tobacco subsidiaries also include excise taxes billed to customers in revenues. Shipping and handling costs are classified as part of cost of sales.

 

·    Software costs: Altria Group, Inc. capitalizes certain computer software and software development costs incurred in connection with developing or obtaining computer software for internal use. Capitalized software costs are included in property, plant and equipment on the consolidated balance sheets and are amortized on a straight-line basis over the estimated useful lives of the software, which do not exceed five years.

 

·    Stock-based compensation: Altria Group, Inc. accounts for employee stock compensation plans in accordance with the intrinsic value-based method permitted by SFAS No. 123, “Accounting for Stock-Based Compensation,” which has not resulted in compensation cost for stock options. The market value at date of grant of restricted stock and rights to receive shares of stock is recorded as compensation expense over the period of restriction, which is generally three years.

 

At December 31, 2005, Altria Group, Inc. had stock-based employee compensation plans, which are described more fully in Note 12. Stock Plans . Altria Group, Inc. applies the recognition and measurement principles of Accounting Principles Board Opinion No. 25, “Accounting for Stock Issued to Employees,” and related Interpretations in accounting for stock options within those plans. No compensation expense for employee stock options is reflected in net earnings, as all stock options granted under those plans had an exercise price not less than the market value of the common stock on the date of the grant. Net earnings, as reported, includes pre-tax compensation expense related to restricted stock and rights to receive shares of stock of $263 million, $185 million and $99 million for the years ended December 31, 2005, 2004 and 2003, respectively. The following table illustrates the effect on net earnings and earnings per share (“EPS”) if Altria Group, Inc. had applied the fair value recognition provisions of SFAS No. 123 to measure compensation expense for outstanding stock option awards for the years ended December 31, 2005, 2004 and 2003:

 

 

 

 

 

(in millions, except per share data)    


   2005

   2004

   2003

Net earnings, as reported

   $ 10,435    $ 9,416    $ 9,204

Deduct:

                    

Total stock-based employee compensation expense determined under fair value method for all stock option awards, net of related tax effects

     15      12      19
    

  

  

Pro forma net earnings

   $ 10,420    $ 9,404    $ 9,185
    

  

  

Earnings per share:

                    

Basic - as reported

   $ 5.04    $ 4.60    $ 4.54
    

  

  

Basic - pro forma

   $ 5.03    $ 4.59    $ 4.53
    

  

  

Diluted - as reported

   $ 4.99    $ 4.56    $ 4.52
    

  

  

Diluted - pro forma

   $ 4.98    $ 4.56    $ 4.51
    

  

  

 

Altria Group, Inc. has not granted stock options to employees since 2002. The amounts shown above as stock-based compensation expense in 2005 and 2004 relate primarily to Executive Ownership Stock Options (“EOSOs”). Under certain circumstances, senior executives who exercise outstanding stock options, using shares to pay the option exercise price and taxes, receive EOSOs equal to the number of shares tendered. During the years ended December 31, 2005, 2004 and 2003, Altria Group, Inc. granted 2.0 million, 1.7 million and 1.3 million EOSOs, respectively.

 

In 2004, the FASB issued SFAS No. 123 (revised 2004), “Share-Based Payment” (“SFAS No. 123R”). SFAS No. 123R requires companies to measure compensation cost for share-based payments at fair value. Altria Group, Inc. will adopt this new standard prospectively, on January 1, 2006, and it will not have a material impact on Altria Group, Inc.’s consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

 

50


Exhibit 13

 

 

Note 3.

 

Asset Impairment and Exit Costs:

 

For the years ended December 31, 2005, 2004 and 2003, pre-tax asset impairment and exit costs consisted of the following:

 

(in millions)    


        2005

   2004

   2003

Separation program    Domestic tobacco    $ -    $ 1    $ 13
Separation program    International tobacco*      55      31       
Separation program    General corporate**      49      56      26
Restructuring program    North American food      66      383       
Restructuring program    International food      144      200       
Asset impairment    International tobacco*      35      13       
Asset impairment    North American food      269      8       
Asset impairment    International food             12      6
Asset impairment    General corporate**             10      41
Lease termination    General corporate**             4       
         

  

  

Asset impairment and exit costs         $ 618    $ 718    $ 86
         

  

  


*  During 2005, PMI recorded pre-tax charges of $90 million, primarily related to the write-off of obsolete equipment, severance benefits and impairment charges associated with the closure of a factory in the Czech Republic, and the streamlining of various operations. During 2004, PMI recorded pre-tax charges of $44 million for severance benefits and impairment charges related to the closure of its Eger, Hungary facility and a factory in Belgium, and the streamlining of its Benelux operations.

 

**In 2005, 2004 and 2003, Altria Group, Inc. recorded pre-tax charges of $49 million, $70 million and $26 million, respectively, primarily related to the streamlining of various corporate functions in each year, and the write-off of an investment in an e-business consumer products purchasing exchange in 2004. In addition, during 2004, Altria Group, Inc. sold its office facility in Rye Brook, New York. In connection with this sale, Altria Group, Inc. recorded a pre-tax charge in 2003 of $41 million to write down the facility and the related fixed assets to fair value.

 

Kraft Restructuring Program

 

In January 2004, Kraft announced a multi-year restructuring program with the objectives of leveraging Kraft’s global scale, realigning and lowering its cost structure, and optimizing capacity utilization. As part of this program, Kraft anticipates the closing or sale of up to twenty plants and the elimination of approximately six thousand positions. From 2004 through 2006, Kraft expects to incur approximately $1.2 billion in pre-tax charges for the program, reflecting asset disposals, severance and other implementation costs, including $297 million and $641 million incurred in 2005 and 2004, respectively. Approximately sixty percent of the pre-tax charges are expected to require cash payments. In addition, in January 2006, Kraft announced plans to continue its restructuring efforts beyond those originally contemplated. Additional pre-tax charges are anticipated to be $2.5 billion from 2006 to 2009, of which approximately $1.6 billion are expected to require cash payments. These charges will result in the anticipated closure of up to 20 additional facilities and the elimination of approximately 8,000 additional positions. Initiatives under the expanded program include additional organizational streamlining and facility closures. The entire restructuring program is expected to ultimately result in $3.7 billion in pre-tax charges, the closure of up to 40 facilities and the elimination of approximately 14,000 positions. Approximately $2.3 billion of the $3.7 billion in pre-tax charges are expected to require cash payments.

 

During 2005, Kraft recorded $479 million of asset impairment and exit costs on the consolidated statement of earnings. These pre-tax charges were composed of $210 million of costs under the restructuring program, and $269 million of asset impairment charges related to the sale of Kraft’s fruit snacks assets in 2005 and Kraft’s pending sale of certain assets in Canada and a small biscuit brand in the United States. The 2005 pre-tax restructuring charges reflect the announcement of the closing of 6 plants, for a total of 19 since January 2004, and the continuation of a number of workforce reduction programs. Approximately $170 million of the pre-tax charges incurred in 2005 will require cash payments. During 2004, Kraft recorded $603 million of asset impairment and exit costs in the consolidated statement of earnings. These pre-tax charges were composed of $583 million of costs under the restructuring program, $12 million of impairment charges relating to intangible assets and $8 million of impairment charges related to the sale of Kraft’s yogurt brand. The 2004 restructuring charges resulted from the 2004 announcement of the closing of 13 plants, the termination of co-manufacturing agreements and the commencement of a number of workforce reduction programs.

 

Pre-tax restructuring liability activity for 2005 and 2004 was as follows:

 

 

 

 

(in millions)    


   Severance

   

Asset

Write-
downs


    Other

    Total

 

Liability balance, January 1, 2004

   $ -     $ -     $ -     $ -  

Charges

     176       363       44       583  

Cash spent

     (84 )             (26 )     (110 )

Charges against assets

     (5 )     (363 )             (368 )

Currency

     4               1       5  
    


 


 


 


Liability balance, December 31, 2004

     91       -       19       110  

Charges

     154       30       26       210  

Cash spent

     (114 )             (50 )     (164 )

Charges against assets

     (12 )     (30 )             (42 )

Currency/other

     (5 )             6       1  
    


 


 


 


Liability balance, December 31, 2005

   $ 114     $ -     $ 1     $ 115  
    


 


 


 


 

Severance costs in the above schedule, which relate to the workforce reduction programs, include the cost of related benefits. Specific programs announced during 2004 and 2005, as part of the overall restructuring program, will result in the elimination of approximately 5,500 positions. At December 31, 2005, approximately 4,900 of these positions have been eliminated. Asset write-downs relate to the impairment of assets caused by the plant closings and related activity. Other costs incurred relate primarily to contract termination costs associated with the plant closings and the

 

51


Exhibit 13

 

 

termination of co-manufacturing and leasing agreements. Severance charges taken against assets relate to incremental pension costs, which reduce prepaid pension assets.

 

During 2005 and 2004, Kraft recorded pre-tax implementation costs associated with the restructuring program. These costs include the discontinuance of certain product lines and incremental costs related to the integration and streamlining of functions and closure of facilities. Substantially all implementation costs incurred in 2005 will require cash payments. These costs were recorded on the consolidated statements of earnings as follows:

 

(in millions)        


   2005

   2004

Net revenues

   $ 2    $ 7

Cost of sales

     56      30

Marketing, administration and research costs

     29      13
    

  

Total - continuing operations

     87      50

Discontinued operations

            8
    

  

Total implementation costs

   $ 87    $ 58
    

  

 

Kraft Asset Impairment Charges

 

During 2005, Kraft sold its fruit snacks assets for approximately $30 million and incurred a pre-tax asset impairment charge of $93 million in recognition of the sale. During December 2005, Kraft reached agreements to sell certain assets in Canada and a small biscuit brand in the United States. These transactions are expected to close in the first quarter of 2006. Kraft incurred pre-tax asset impairment charges of $176 million in recognition of these pending sales. These charges, which include the write-off of all associated intangible assets, were recorded as asset impairment and exit costs on the consolidated statement of earnings.

 

During 2004, Kraft recorded a $29 million non-cash pre-tax charge related to an intangible asset impairment for a small confectionery business in the United States and certain brands in Mexico. A portion of this charge, $17 million, was reclassified to earnings from discontinued operations on the consolidated statement of earnings in the fourth quarter of 2004.

 

In November 2004, following discussions between Kraft and its joint venture partner in Turkey, and an independent valuation of its equity investment, it was determined that a permanent decline in value had occurred. This valuation resulted in a $47 million non-cash pre-tax charge. This charge was recorded as marketing, administration and research costs on the consolidated statement of earnings. During 2005, Kraft’s interest in the joint venture was sold.

 

In 2004, as a result of the anticipated sale of the sugar confectionery business in 2005, Kraft recorded non-cash asset impairments totaling $107 million. This charge was included in loss from discontinued operations on the consolidated statement of earnings.

 

In 2004, as a result of the anticipated sale of a yogurt brand in 2005, Kraft recorded asset impairments totaling $8 million. This charge was recorded as asset impairment and exit costs on the consolidated statement of earnings.

 

Note 4.

 

Divestitures:

 

Discontinued Operations

 

In June 2005, Kraft sold substantially all of its sugar confectionery business for pre-tax proceeds of approximately $1.4 billion. The sale included the Life Savers , Creme Savers , Altoids , Trolli and Sugus brands. Altria Group, Inc. has reflected the results of Kraft’s sugar confectionery business prior to the closing date as discontinued operations on the consolidated statements of earnings for all years presented. Pursuant to the sugar confectionery sale agreement, Kraft has agreed to provide certain transition and supply services to the buyer. These service arrangements are primarily for terms of one year or less, with the exception of one supply arrangement with a term of not more than three years. The expected cash flow from this supply arrangement is not significant.

 

Summary results of operations for the sugar confectionery business for the years ended December 31, 2005, 2004 and 2003, were as follows:

 

(in millions)        


   2005

    2004

    2003

 

Net revenues

   $ 228     $ 477     $ 512  
    


 


 


Earnings before income taxes and minority interest

   $ 41     $ 103     $ 151  

Impairment loss on assets of discontinued operations held for sale

             (107 )        

Provision for income taxes

     (16 )             (54 )

Loss on sale of discontinued operations

     (297 )                

Minority interest in loss (earnings) from discontinued operations

     39               (14 )
    


 


 


(Loss) earnings from discontinued operations, net of income taxes and minority interest

   $ (233 )   $ (4 )   $ 83  
    


 


 


 

As a result of the sale, Kraft recorded a net loss on sale of discontinued operations of $297 million in 2005, related largely to taxes on the transaction. ALG’s share of the loss, net of minority interest, was $255 million.

 

The assets of the sugar confectionery business, which were reflected as assets of discontinued operations held for sale on the consolidated balance sheet at December 31, 2004, were as follows (in millions):

 

Inventories

   $ 65  

Property, plant and equipment, net

     201  

Goodwill

     814  

Other intangible assets, net

     485  

Impairment loss on assets of discontinued operations held for sale

     (107 )
    


Assets of discontinued operations held for sale

   $ 1,458  
    


 

Other

 

During 2005, Kraft sold its fruit snacks assets and incurred a pre-tax asset impairment charge of $93 million in recognition of this sale. Additionally, during 2005, Kraft sold its desserts assets in the U.K. and its U.S. yogurt brand. The aggregate proceeds received from other divestitures during 2005 were $238 million, on which pre-tax gains of $108 million were recorded. In December 2005, Kraft announced the sale of certain Canadian assets and a small U.S. biscuit brand, incurring pre-tax asset impairment charges of $176 million in recognition of these sales. These transactions are expected to close in the first quarter of 2006.

 

During 2004, Kraft sold a Brazilian snack nuts business and trademarks associated with a candy business in Norway. The aggregate proceeds received from the sales of these businesses were $18 million, on which pre-tax losses of $3 million were recorded.

 

52


Exhibit 13

 

 

During 2003, Kraft sold a European rice business and a branded fresh cheese business in Italy. The aggregate proceeds received from the sales of businesses in 2003 were $96 million, on which pre-tax gains of $31 million were recorded.

 

The operating results of the other divestitures, discussed above, in the aggregate, were not material to Altria Group, Inc.’s consolidated financial position, operating results or cash flows in any of the periods presented.

 

Note 5.

 

Acquisitions:

 

Sampoerna

 

In March 2005, a subsidiary of PMI acquired 40% of the outstanding shares of PT HM Sampoerna Tbk (“Sampoerna”), an Indonesian tobacco company. In May 2005, PMI purchased an additional 58%, for a total of 98%. The total cost of the transaction was approximately $4.8 billion, including Sampoerna’s cash of approximately $0.3 billion and debt of the U.S. dollar equivalent of approximately $0.2 billion. The purchase price was primarily financed through a euro 4.5 billion bank credit facility arranged for PMI and its subsidiaries in May 2005, consisting of a euro 2.5 billion three-year term loan facility and a euro 2.0 billion five-year revolving credit facility. These facilities are not guaranteed by ALG.

 

The acquisition of Sampoerna allowed PMI to enter the profitable kretek cigarette segment in Indonesia. Sampoerna’s financial position and results of operations have been fully consolidated with PMI as of June 1, 2005. From March 2005 to May 2005, PMI recorded equity earnings in Sampoerna. Sampoerna contributed $315 million of operating income and $128 million of net earnings since March 2005.

 

Assets purchased consist primarily of goodwill of $3.5 billion, other intangible assets of $1.3 billion, inventories of $0.5 billion and property, plant and equipment of $0.4 billion. Liabilities assumed in the acquisition consist principally of long-term debt of $0.2 billion and accrued liabilities. These amounts represent the preliminary allocation of purchase price and are subject to revision when appraisals are finalized, which will be in the first half of 2006.

 

Other

 

During 2005, PMI acquired a 98.2% stake in Coltabaco, the largest tobacco company in Colombia, with a 48% market share, for approximately $300 million.

 

During 2004, Kraft purchased a U.S.-based beverage business, and PMI purchased a tobacco business in Finland. The total cost of acquisitions during 2004 was $179 million.

 

During 2003, PMI purchased approximately 74.2% of a tobacco business in Serbia for a cost of $486 million and purchased 99% of a tobacco business in Greece for approximately $387 million. PMI also increased its ownership interest in its affiliate in Ecuador from less than 50% to approximately 98% for a cost of $70 million. In addition, Kraft acquired a biscuits business in Egypt and acquired trademarks associated with a small U.S.-based natural foods business. The total cost of acquisitions during 2003 was $1.0 billion.

 

The effects of these other acquisitions were not material to Altria Group, Inc.’s consolidated financial position, results of operations or operating cash flows in any of the periods presented.

 

Note 6.

 

Inventories:

 

The cost of approximately 34% and 35% of inventories in 2005 and 2004, respectively, was determined using the LIFO method. The stated LIFO amounts of inventories were approximately $0.6 billion and $0.8 billion lower than the current cost of inventories at December 31, 2005 and 2004, respectively.

 

Note 7.

 

Investment in SABMiller:

 

At December 31, 2005, ALG had a 28.7% economic and voting interest in SABMiller. ALG’s ownership interest in SABMiller is being accounted for under the equity method. Accordingly, ALG’s investment in SABMiller of approximately $3.4 billion and $2.5 billion is included in other assets on the consolidated balance sheets at December 31, 2005 and 2004, respectively. In October 2005, SABMiller purchased a 71.8% interest in Bavaria SA, the second-largest brewer in South America, in exchange for the issuance of 225 million SABMiller ordinary shares. The ordinary shares had a value of approximately $3.5 billion. The remaining shares of Bavaria SA were acquired via a cash tender offer. Following the completion of the share issuance, ALG’s economic ownership interest in SABMiller was reduced from 33.9% to approximately 28.7%. In addition, ALG elected to convert all of its non-voting shares into voting shares, and as a result increased its voting interest from 24.9% to 28.7%. The issuance of SABMiller ordinary shares in exchange for a controlling interest in Bavaria SA resulted in a change of ownership gain for ALG of $402 million, net of income taxes, that was recorded in stockholders’ equity in the fourth quarter of 2005. ALG records its share of SABMiller’s net earnings, based on its economic ownership percentage, in minority interest in earnings from continuing operations and equity earnings, net, on the consolidated statements of earnings.

 

Note 8.

 

Finance Assets, net:

 

In 2003, PMCC shifted its strategic focus and is no longer making new investments but is instead focused on managing its existing portfolio of finance assets in order to maximize gains and generate cash flow from asset sales and related activities. Accordingly, PMCC’s operating companies income will fluctuate over time as investments mature or are sold. During 2005, 2004 and 2003, PMCC received proceeds from asset sales and maturities of $476 million, $644 million and $507 million, respectively, and recorded gains of $72 million, $112 million and $45 million, respectively, in operating companies income.

 

At December 31, 2005, finance assets, net, of $7,189 million were comprised of investments in finance leases of $7,737 million and other receivables of $48 million, reduced by allowance for losses of $596 million. At December 31, 2004, finance assets, net, of $7,827 million were comprised of investments in finance leases of $8,266 million and other receivables of $58 million, reduced by allowance for losses of $497 million.

 

53


Exhibit 13

 

 

A summary of the net investment in finance leases at December 31, before allowance for losses, was as follows:

 

(in millions)            


   Leveraged Leases

   

Direct

Finance Leases


    Total

 
   2005

    2004

    2005

    2004

    2005

    2004

 

Rentals receivable, net

   $ 8,237     $ 8,726     $ 628     $ 747     $ 8,865     $ 9,473  

Unguaranteed residual values

     1,846       2,139       101       110       1,947       2,249  

Unearned income

     (2,878 )     (3,237 )     (159 )     (177 )     (3,037 )     (3,414 )

Deferred investment tax credits

     (38 )     (42 )                     (38 )     (42 )
    


 


 


 


 


 


Investments in finance leases

     7,167       7,586       570       680       7,737       8,266  

Deferred income taxes

     (5,666 )     (5,739 )     (320 )     (351 )     (5,986 )     (6,090 )
    


 


 


 


 


 


Net investments in finance leases

   $ 1,501     $ 1,847     $ 250     $ 329     $ 1,751     $ 2,176  
    


 


 


 


 


 


 

For leveraged leases, rentals receivable, net, represent unpaid rentals, net of principal and interest payments on third-party nonrecourse debt. PMCC’s rights to rentals receivable are subordinate to the third-party nonrecourse debtholders, and the leased equipment is pledged as collateral to the debtholders. The payment of the nonrecourse debt is collateralized by lease payments receivable and the leased property, and is nonrecourse to the general assets of PMCC. As required by U.S. GAAP, the third-party nonrecourse debt of $16.7 billion and $18.3 billion at December 31, 2005 and 2004, respectively, has been offset against the related rentals receivable. There were no leases with contingent rentals in 2005, 2004 and 2003.

 

At December 31, 2005, PMCC’s investment in finance leases was principally comprised of the following investment categories: aircraft (27%), electric power (26%), surface transport (21%), manufacturing (13%), real estate (11%) and energy (2%). Investments located outside the United States, which are primarily dollar-denominated, represent 20% and 19% of PMCC’s investments in finance leases in 2005 and 2004, respectively.

 

Among its leasing activities, PMCC leases a number of aircraft, predominantly to major United States passenger carriers. At December 31, 2005, $2.1 billion of PMCC’s finance asset balance related to aircraft. Two of PMCC’s aircraft lessees, Delta Air Lines, Inc. (“Delta”) and Northwest Airlines, Inc. (“Northwest”) are currently under bankruptcy protection, and a third lessee, United Air Lines, Inc. (“United”), exited bankruptcy on February 1, 2006. PMCC is not recording income on these leases. In addition, PMCC leases various natural gas-fired power plants to indirect subsidiaries of Calpine Corporation (“Calpine”), also currently under bankruptcy protection. PMCC is not recording income on these leases.

 

PMCC leases 24 Boeing 757 aircraft to United with an aggregate finance asset balance of $541 million at December 31, 2005. PMCC has entered into an agreement with United to amend 18 direct finance leases and United has assumed the 18 amended leases. There is no third-party debt associated with these leases. United remains current on lease payments due to PMCC on these 18 amended leases. PMCC continues to monitor the situation at United with respect to the six remaining aircraft financed under leveraged leases, in which PMCC has an aggregate finance asset balance of $92 million. United and the public debtholders have a court approved agreement that calls for the public debtholders to foreclose on PMCC’s interests in these six aircraft and transfer them to United. The foreclosure, expected to occur in 2006, subsequent to United’s emergence from bankruptcy, would result in the write-off of the $92 million finance asset balance against PMCC’s allowance for losses and the acceleration of tax payments in the amount of approximately $55 million on these leases.

 

In addition, PMCC has an aggregate finance asset balance of $257 million at December 31, 2005, relating to six Boeing 757, nine Boeing 767 and four McDonnell Douglas (MD-88) aircraft leased to Delta under leveraged leases. In November 2004, PMCC, along with other aircraft lessors, entered into restructuring agreements with Delta on all 19 aircraft. As a result of its agreement, PMCC recorded a charge to the allowance for losses of $40 million in the fourth quarter of 2004. As a result of Delta’s bankruptcy filing in September 2005, the restructuring agreement is no longer in effect and PMCC is at risk of having its interest in these aircraft foreclosed upon by the senior lenders under the leveraged leases. Should a foreclosure occur, it would also result in the write-off of the finance asset balance against PMCC’s allowance for losses and the acceleration of tax payments on these leases, and may require further provisions to increase the allowance for losses.

 

PMCC also leases three Airbus A-320 aircraft and five British Aerospace RJ85 aircraft to Northwest financed under leveraged leases with an aggregate finance asset balance of $62 million at December 31, 2005. Northwest filed for bankruptcy protection in September 2005. As a result of Northwest’s bankruptcy filing, PMCC is at risk of having its interest in these aircraft foreclosed upon by the senior lenders under the leveraged leases. Should a foreclosure occur, it would also result in the write-off of the finance asset balance against PMCC’s allowance for losses and the acceleration of tax payments on these leases.

 

In addition, PMCC’s leveraged leases for ten Airbus A-319 aircraft with Northwest have been rejected in the bankruptcy. As a result of the lease rejection, PMCC, as owner of the aircraft, recorded these assets on its consolidated balance sheet at the lower of net book value or fair market value. The adjustment to fair market value resulted in a $100 million charge against the allowance for losses in the fourth quarter of 2005. The assets are classified as held for sale and reflected in other assets on the consolidated balance sheet until such time as the assets are either sold or foreclosed upon by the lenders. In addition, the related nonrecourse debt is reflected in other liabilities on the consolidated balance sheet until such time as the underlying assets are either sold or foreclosed upon by the senior lenders. Should a foreclosure occur, it would result in the acceleration of tax payments on these aircraft of approximately $57 million.

 

In addition, PMCC leases 16 Airbus A-319 aircraft to US Airways, Inc. (“US Airways”) financed under leveraged leases with an aggregate finance asset balance of $150 million at December 31, 2005. In September 2005, US Airways emerged from bankruptcy protection and assumed the leases on PMCC’s aircraft without any changes. Also in September 2005, US Airways and America West Holdings Corp. (“America West”) completed a merger. PMCC leases five Airbus A-320 aircraft and three engines to America West with an aggregate finance asset balance of $44 million at December 31, 2005.

 

54


Exhibit 13

 

 

PMCC also leases two 265 megawatt (“MW”) natural gas-fired power plants (located in Tiverton, Rhode Island, and Rumford, Maine) and one 750 MW natural gas-fired power plant (located in Pasadena, Texas) to indirect subsidiaries of Calpine financed under leveraged leases with an aggregate finance asset balance of $206 million at December 31, 2005. On December 20, 2005, Calpine filed for bankruptcy protection. In the initial bankruptcy filing, PMCC’s lessees of the Tiverton and Rumford projects were included. On February 6, 2006, these leases were rejected. The Pasadena lessee did not file for bankruptcy but could file at a future date. Should a foreclosure on any of these projects occur, it would result in the write-off of the finance asset balance against PMCC’s allowance for losses and the acceleration of tax payments on these leases, and may require further provisions to increase the allowance for losses.

 

Due to continuing uncertainty within its airline portfolio and bankruptcy filings by Delta and Northwest, PMCC recorded a provision for losses of $200 million in September 2005. As a result of this provision, PMCC’s fixed charges coverage ratio did not meet its 1.25:1 requirement under a support agreement with ALG. Accordingly, as required by the support agreement, a support payment of $150 million was made by ALG to PMCC in September 2005.

 

Previously, PMCC recorded provisions for losses of $140 million in the fourth quarter of 2004 and $290 million in the fourth quarter of 2002 for its airline industry exposure. At December 31, 2005, PMCC’s allowance for losses, which includes the provisions recorded by PMCC for its airline industry exposure, was $596 million. It is possible that adverse developments in the airline or other industries may require PMCC to increase its allowance for losses.

 

Rentals receivable in excess of debt service requirements on third-party nonrecourse debt related to leveraged leases and rentals receivable from direct finance leases at December 31, 2005, were as follows:

 

(in millions)      


   Leveraged
Leases


   Direct
Finance
Leases


   Total

2006

   $ 233    $ 48    $ 281

2007

     209      32      241

2008

     329      19      348

2009

     298      19      317

2010

     348      17      365

2011 and thereafter

     6,820      493      7,313
    

  

  

Total

   $ 8,237    $ 628    $ 8,865
    

  

  

 

Included in net revenues for the years ended December 31, 2005, 2004 and 2003, were leveraged lease revenues of $303 million, $351 million and $333 million, respectively, and direct finance lease revenues of $11 million, $38 million and $90 million, respectively. Income tax expense on leveraged lease revenues for the years ended December 31, 2005, 2004 and 2003, was $108 million, $136 million and $120 million, respectively.

 

Income from investment tax credits on leveraged leases and initial direct costs and executory costs on direct finance leases were not significant during the years ended December 31, 2005, 2004 and 2003.

 

Note 9.

 

Short-Term Borrowings and Borrowing Arrangements:

 

At December 31, 2005 and 2004, Altria Group, Inc.’s short-term borrowings and related average interest rates consisted of the following (in millions):

 

     2005

    2004

 
     Amount
Outstanding


    Average
Year-End
Rate


    Amount
Outstanding


   Average
Year-End
Rate


 

Consumer products:

                           

Bank loans

   $ 4,809     4.2 %   $ 878    4.9 %

Commercial paper

     407     4.3       1,668    2.4  

Amount reclassified as long-term debt

     (2,380 )                   
    


       

      
     $ 2,836           $ 2,546       
    


       

      

 

The fair values of Altria Group, Inc.’s short-term borrowings at December 31, 2005 and 2004, based upon current market interest rates, approximate the amounts disclosed above.

 

Following a $10.1 billion judgment on March 21, 2003, against PM USA in the Price litigation, which is discussed in Note 19. Contingencies , the three major credit rating agencies took a series of ratings actions resulting in the lowering of ALG’s short-term and long-term debt ratings. During 2003, Moody’s lowered ALG’s short-term debt rating from “P-1” to “P-3” and its long-term debt rating from “A2” to “Baa2.” Standard & Poor’s lowered ALG’s short-term debt rating from “A-1” to “A-2” and its long-term debt rating from “A-” to “BBB.” Fitch Rating Services lowered ALG’s short-term debt rating from “F-1” to “F-2” and its long-term debt rating from “A” to “BBB.”

 

While Kraft is not a party to, and has no exposure to, this litigation, its credit ratings were also lowered, but to a lesser degree. As a result of the rating agencies’ actions, borrowing costs for ALG and Kraft have increased. None of ALG’s or Kraft’s debt agreements require accelerated repayment as a result of a decrease in credit ratings. The credit rating downgrades by Moody’s, Standard & Poor’s and Fitch Rating Services had no impact on any of ALG’s or Kraft’s other existing third-party contracts.

 

As discussed in Note 5. Acquisitions , the purchase price of the Sampoerna acquisition was primarily financed through a euro 4.5 billion bank credit facility arranged for PMI and its subsidiaries in May 2005, consisting of a euro 2.5 billion three-year term loan facility and a euro 2.0 billion five-year revolving credit facility. These facilities, which are not guaranteed by ALG, require PMI to maintain an earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization (“EBITDA”) to interest ratio of not less than 3.5 to 1.0. At December 31, 2005, PMI exceeded this ratio by a significant amount and is expected to continue to exceed it.

 

In April 2005, ALG negotiated a 364-day revolving credit facility in the amount of $1.0 billion and a new multi-year credit facility in the amount of $4.0 billion, which expires in April 2010. In addition, ALG terminated the existing $5.0 billion multi-year credit facility, which was due to expire in July 2006. The new ALG facilities require the maintenance of an earnings to fixed charges ratio, as defined by the agreement, of 2.5 to 1.0. At December 31, 2005, the ratio calculated in accordance with the agreement was 10.0 to 1.0.

 

55


Exhibit 13

 

 

In April 2005, Kraft negotiated a new multi-year revolving credit facility to replace both its $2.5 billion 364-day facility that was due to expire in July 2005 and its $2.0 billion multi-year facility that was due to expire in July 2006. The new Kraft facility, which is for the sole use of Kraft, in the amount of $4.5 billion, expires in April 2010 and requires the maintenance of a minimum net worth of $20.0 billion. At December 31, 2005, Kraft’s net worth was $29.6 billion.

 

ALG, PMI and Kraft expect to continue to meet their respective covenants. These facilities do not include any credit rating triggers or any provisions that could require the posting of collateral. The multi-year facilities enable the respective companies to reclassify short-term debt on a long-term basis.

 

At December 31, 2005, approximately $2.4 billion of short-term borrowings that PMI expects to remain outstanding at December 31, 2006 were reclassified as long-term debt.

 

At December 31, 2005, credit lines for ALG, Kraft and PMI, and the related activity, were as follows:

 

ALG


   December 31, 2005

Type

(in billions of dollars)


   Credit Lines

   Amount
Drawn


   Commercial
Paper
Outstanding


   Lines
Available


364-day

   $ 1.0    $ -    $ -    $ 1.0

Multi-year

     4.0                    4.0
    

  

  

  

     $ 5.0    $ -    $ -    $ 5.0
    

  

  

  

Kraft


   December 31, 2005

Type

(in billions of dollars)


   Credit Lines

   Amount
Drawn


   Commercial
Paper
Outstanding


   Lines
Available


Multi-year

   $ 4.5    $ -    $ 0.4    $ 4.1
    

  

  

  

PMI


   December 31, 2005

    

Type

(in billions of dollars)


   Credit Lines

  

Amount

Drawn


  

Lines

Available


    

euro 2.5 billion, 3-year term loan

   $ 3.0    $ 3.0    $ -       

euro 2.0 billion, 5-year revolving credit

     2.3      0.8      1.5       
    

  

  

      
     $ 5.3    $ 3.8    $ 1.5       
    

  

  

      

 

In addition to the above, certain international subsidiaries of ALG and Kraft maintain credit lines to meet their respective working capital needs. These credit lines, which amounted to approximately $2.2 billion for ALG subsidiaries (other than Kraft) and approximately $1.3 billion for Kraft subsidiaries, are for the sole use of these international businesses. Borrowings on these lines amounted to approximately $1.0 billion and $0.9 billion at December 31, 2005 and 2004, respectively.

 

ALG does not guarantee the debt of Kraft or PMI.

 

Note 10.

 

Long-Term Debt:

 

At December 31, 2005 and 2004, Altria Group, Inc.’s long-term debt consisted of the following:

 

 

 

(in millions)    


   2005

    2004

 

Consumer products:

                

Short-term borrowings, reclassified as long-term debt

   $ 2,380     $ -  

Notes, 4.00% to 7.65% (average effective rate 5.82%), due through 2031

     12,721       14,443  

Debentures, 7.00% to 8.38% (average effective rate 8.39%), $1,016 million face amount, due through 2027

     981       911  

Foreign currency obligations:

                

Euro, 4.50% to 5.63% (average effective rate 5.07%), due through 2008

     2,387       2,670  

Other foreign

     448       15  

Other

     166       174  
    


 


       19,083       18,213  

Less current portion of long-term debt

     (3,430 )     (1,751 )
    


 


     $ 15,653     $ 16,462  
    


 


Financial services:

                

Eurodollar bonds, 7.50%, due 2009

   $ 499     $ 499  

Swiss franc, 4.00%, due 2006 and 2007

     1,336       1,521  

Euro, 6.88%, due 2006

     179       201  
    


 


     $ 2,014     $ 2,221  
    


 


 

The increase in other foreign debt primarily reflects debt assumed as part of PMI’s acquisition of Sampoerna and capital lease obligations associated with the expansion of PMI’s vending machine distribution in Japan.

 

Aggregate maturities of long-term debt are as follows:

 

(in millions)    


   Consumer Products

   Financial Services

2006

   $3,430    $943

2007

   2,039     572

2008

   2,825     

2009

   1,037     499

2010

        15     

2011-2015

   5,891     

2016-2020

          1     

Thereafter

   1,500     

 

56


Exhibit 13

 

 

Based on market quotes, where available, or interest rates currently available to Altria Group, Inc. for issuance of debt with similar terms and remaining maturities, the aggregate fair value of consumer products and financial services long-term debt, including the current portion of long-term debt, at December 31, 2005 and 2004 was $21.7 billion.

 

ALG does not guarantee the debt of Kraft or PMI.

 

Note 11.

 

Capital Stock:

 

Shares of authorized common stock are 12 billion; issued, repurchased and outstanding shares were as follows:

 

    

Shares

Issued


     Shares
Repurchased


    

Shares

Outstanding


 

Balances, January 1, 2003

   2,805,961,317      (766,701,765 )    2,039,259,552  

Exercise of stock options and issuance of other stock awards

          16,675,270      16,675,270  

Repurchased

          (18,671,400 )    (18,671,400 )
    
    

  

Balances, December 31, 2003

   2,805,961,317      (768,697,895 )    2,037,263,422  

Exercise of stock options and issuance of other stock awards

          22,264,054      22,264,054  
    
    

  

Balances, December 31, 2004

   2,805,961,317      (746,433,841 )    2,059,527,476  

Exercise of stock options and issuance of other stock awards

          24,736,923      24,736,923  
    
    

  

Balances, December 31, 2005

   2,805,961,317      (721,696,918 )    2,084,264,399  
    
    

  

 

At December 31, 2005, 104,294,075 shares of common stock were reserved for stock options and other stock awards under Altria Group, Inc.’s stock plans, and 10 million shares of Serial Preferred Stock, $1.00 par value, were authorized, none of which have been issued.

 

Following the rating agencies’ actions discussed in Note 9. Short-Term Borrowings and Borrowing Arrangements , ALG suspended its share repurchase program. During 2005, 2004 and 2003, Kraft repurchased 39.2 million, 21.5 million and 12.5 million shares of its Class A common stock at a cost of $1.2 billion, $700 million and $380 million, respectively.

 

Note 12.

 

Stock Plans:

 

In 2005, Altria Group, Inc.’s Board of Directors adopted, and the stockholders approved, the Altria Group, Inc. 2005 Performance Incentive Plan (the “2005 Plan”). The 2005 Plan replaced the 2000 Performance Incentive Plan when it expired in May 2005. Under the 2005 Plan, Altria Group, Inc. may grant to eligible employees stock options, stock appreciation rights, restricted stock, restricted and deferred stock units, and other stock-based awards, as well as cash-based annual and long-term incentive awards. Up to 50 million shares of common stock may be issued under the 2005 Plan. Also, in 2005, Altria Group, Inc.’s Board of Directors adopted, and the stockholders approved, the 2005 Stock Compensation Plan for Non-Employee Directors (the “2005 Directors Plan”). The 2005 Directors Plan replaced the 2000 Stock Compensation Plan for Non-Employee Directors. Under the 2005 Directors Plan, Altria Group, Inc. may grant up to one million shares of common stock to members of the Board of Directors who are not employees of Altria Group, Inc. Shares available to be granted under the 2005 Plan and the 2005 Directors Plan at December 31, 2005, were 48,527,341 and 998,158, respectively.

 

In addition, Kraft may grant stock options, stock appreciation rights, restricted stock, restricted and deferred stock units, and other awards of its Class A common stock to its employees under the terms of the Kraft 2005 Performance Incentive Plan (the “Kraft Plan”). Up to 150 million shares of Kraft’s Class A common stock may be issued under the Kraft Plan, of which no more than 45 million shares may be awarded as restricted stock. At December 31, 2005, Kraft’s employees held options to purchase 15,145,840 shares of Kraft’s Class A common stock.

 

Concurrent with Kraft’s Initial Public Offering (“IPO”) in June 2001, certain Altria Group, Inc. employees received a one-time grant of options to purchase shares of Kraft’s Class A common stock held by Altria Group, Inc. at the IPO price of $31.00 per share. At December 31, 2005, employees held options to purchase approximately 1.4 million shares of Kraft’s Class A common stock from

Altria Group, Inc. In order to completely satisfy the obligation, Altria Group, Inc. purchased 1.6 million shares of Kraft’s Class A common stock in open market transactions during 2002.

 

Altria Group, Inc. and Kraft apply the intrinsic value-based methodology in accounting for the various stock plans. Accordingly, no compensation expense has been recognized other than for restricted stock awards. In 2004, the FASB issued SFAS No. 123R, which requires companies to measure compensation cost for share-based payments at fair value. Altria Group, Inc. will adopt this new standard prospectively, on January 1, 2006.

 

Altria Group, Inc. has not granted stock options to employees since 2002. The amount included below as stock-based compensation expense in 2005 and 2004 relates primarily to EOSOs. Under certain circumstances, senior executives who exercise outstanding stock options using shares to pay the option exercise price and taxes, receive EOSOs equal to the number of shares tendered. During the years ended December 31, 2005, 2004 and 2003, Altria Group, Inc. granted 2.0 million, 1.7 million and 1.3 million EOSOs, respectively. EOSOs are granted at an exercise price of not less than fair value on the date of the grant.

 

57


Exhibit 13

 

 

Had compensation cost for stock option awards been determined by using the fair value at the grant date, Altria Group, Inc.’s net earnings and basic and diluted EPS would have been $10,420 million, $5.03 and $4.98, respectively, for the year ended December 31, 2005; $9,404 million, $4.59 and $4.56, respectively, for the year ended December 31, 2004; and $9,185 million, $4.53 and $4.51, respectively, for the year ended December 31, 2003. The foregoing impact of compensation cost was determined using a modified Black-Scholes methodology and the following assumptions for Altria Group, Inc. common stock:

 

    

Risk-Free

Interest Rate


 

Weighted

Average

Expected

Life


  

Expected

Volatility


 

Expected

Dividend

Yield


 

Fair Value

at Grant
Date


2005 Altria Group, Inc.

   3.97%   4 years    32.66%   4.39%   $ 14.41

2004 Altria Group, Inc.

   2.96      4             37.01      5.22        11.09

2003 Altria Group, Inc.

   2.72      4             37.33      6.26        8.20

 

Altria Group, Inc. stock option activity was as follows for the years ended December 31, 2003, 2004 and 2005:

 

    

Shares Subject

to Option


   

Weighted

Average

Exercise Price


  

Options

Exercisable


Balance at January 1, 2003

   114,323,340     $ 37.62    105,145,417

Options granted

   1,317,224       42.72     

Options exercised

   (15,869,797 )     28.57     

Options canceled

   (3,072,139 )     47.91     
    

          

Balance at December 31, 2003

   96,698,628       38.85    95,229,316

Options granted

   1,678,420       53.32     

Options exercised

   (22,810,009 )     36.26     

Options canceled

   (275,956 )     43.75     
    

          

Balance at December 31, 2004

   75,291,083       39.93    74,548,371

Options granted

   2,026,474       68.88     

Options exercised

   (25,636,420 )     38.44     

Options canceled

   (23,940 )     38.91     
    

          

Balance at December 31, 2005

   51,657,197       41.82    50,837,246
    

 

  

 

The weighted average exercise prices of Altria Group, Inc. stock options exercisable at December 31, 2005, 2004 and 2003, were $41.32, $39.82 and $38.78, respectively.

 

The following table summarizes the status of Altria Group, Inc. stock options outstanding and exercisable as of December 31, 2005, by range of exercise price:

 

     Options Outstanding

   Options Exercisable

    Range of

    Exercise

      Prices    


  

Number

Outstanding


  

Average

Remaining

Contractual

Life


  

Weighted

Average

Exercise

Price


  

Number

Exercisable


  

Weighted

Average

Exercise

Price


$21.34 – $22.09

   6,993,231    4 years    $ 21.35    6,993,231    $ 21.35

  33.94 –   50.72

   39,957,250    4                43.13    39,957,250      43.13

  51.04 –   75.71

   4,706,716    4                61.08    3,886,765      58.60
    
              
      
     51,657,197                50,837,246       
    
              
      

 

Altria Group, Inc. and Kraft may grant shares of restricted stock and rights to receive shares of stock to eligible employees, giving them in most instances all of the rights of stockholders, except that they may not sell, assign, pledge or otherwise encumber such shares and rights. Such shares and rights are subject to forfeiture if certain employment conditions are not met. During 2005, 2004 and 2003, Altria Group, Inc. granted 1,246,970; 1,392,380; and 2,327,320 shares, respectively, of restricted stock to eligible U.S.-based employees and Directors, and during 2005, 2004 and 2003, also issued to eligible non-U.S. employees and Directors rights to receive 955,682; 1,011,467; and 1,499,920 equivalent shares, respectively. The market value per restricted share or right was $61.99, $55.42 and $36.61 on the respective dates of the 2005, 2004 and 2003 grants. At December 31, 2005, restrictions on such stock and rights, net of forfeitures, lapse as follows: 2006-3,001,130 shares; 2007-2,261,060 shares; 2008-2,386,760 shares; and 2011 and thereafter-190,849 shares. During 2005, 2004 and 2003, Kraft granted 4,230,625; 4,129,902; and 3,659,751 restricted Class A shares to eligible U.S.-based employees and issued rights to receive 1,783,711; 1,939,450; and 1,651,717 restricted Class A equivalent shares to eligible non-U.S. employees, respectively. Restrictions on the Kraft Class A shares lapse as follows: 2006-4,140,552 shares; 2007-5,079,097 shares; 2008- 5,596,297 shares; 2009-100,000 shares; 2010-69,170 shares; and 2012-100,000 shares.

 

The fair value of the restricted shares and rights at the date of grant is amortized to expense ratably over the restriction period, which is generally three years. Altria Group, Inc. recorded pre-tax compensation expense related to restricted stock and other stock awards of $263 million (including $148 million related to Kraft awards), $185 million (including $106 million related to Kraft awards) and $99 million (including $57 million related to Kraft awards) for the years ended December 31, 2005, 2004 and 2003, respectively. The unamortized portion of restricted stock and rights awards to employees of Altria Group, Inc. and Kraft, which is reported as a reduction of stockholders’ equity, was $348 million at December 31, 2005. This amount included $202 million related to Kraft and $146 million related to Altria Group, Inc.

 

58


Exhibit 13

 

 

Note 13.

 

Earnings per Share:

 

Basic and diluted EPS from continuing and discontinued operations were calculated using the following:

 

(in millions)

For the Years Ended December 31,    


   2005

    2004

    2003

Earnings from continuing operations

   $ 10,668     $ 9,420     $ 9,121

(Loss) earnings from discontinued operations

     (233 )     (4 )     83
    


 


 

Net earnings

   $ 10,435     $ 9,416     $ 9,204
    


 


 

Weighted average shares for basic EPS

     2,070       2,047       2,028

Plus incremental shares from assumed conversions:

                      

Restricted stock and stock rights

     6       3       2

Stock options

     14       13       8
    


 


 

Weighted average shares for diluted EPS

     2,090       2,063       2,038
    


 


 

 

Incremental shares from assumed conversions are calculated as the number of shares that would be issued, net of the number of shares that could be purchased in the marketplace with the cash received upon stock option exercise or, in the case of restricted stock and rights, the number of shares corresponding to the unamortized compensation expense. For the 2005 computation, the number of stock options excluded from the calculation of weighted average shares for diluted EPS because their effects were antidilutive (i.e., the cash that would be received upon exercise is greater than the average market price of the stock during the year) was immaterial. For the 2004 and 2003 computations, 2 million and 43 million stock options, respectively, were excluded from the calculation of weighted average shares for diluted EPS because their effects were antidilutive.

 

Note 14.

 

Income Taxes:

 

Earnings from continuing operations before income taxes and minority interest, and provision for income taxes consisted of the following for the years ended December 31, 2005, 2004 and 2003:

 

(in millions)    


   2005

    2004

    2003

Earnings from continuing operations before income taxes, minority interest, and equity earnings, net:

                      

United States

   $ 8,062     $ 7,414     $ 8,062

Outside United States

     7,373       6,590       6,547
    


 


 

Total

   $ 15,435     $ 14,004     $ 14,609
    


 


 

Provision for income taxes:

                      

United States federal:

                      

Current

   $ 2,909     $ 2,106     $ 1,926

Deferred

     (765 )     450       742
    


 


 

       2,144       2,556       2,668

State and local

     355       398       377
    


 


 

Total United States

     2,499       2,954       3,045
    


 


 

Outside United States:

                      

Current

     2,179       1,605       1,810

Deferred

     (60 )     (19 )     242
    


 


 

Total outside United States

     2,119       1,586       2,052
    


 


 

Total provision for income taxes

   $ 4,618     $ 4,540     $ 5,097
    


 


 

 

The loss from discontinued operations for the year ended December 31, 2005, includes additional tax expense of $280 million from the sale of Kraft’s sugar confectionery business, prior to any minority interest impact. The loss from discontinued operations for the year ended December 31, 2004, included a deferred income tax benefit of $43 million.

 

At December 31, 2005, applicable United States federal income taxes and foreign withholding taxes have not been provided on approximately $9.3 billion of accumulated earnings of foreign subsidiaries that are expected to be permanently reinvested.

 

In October 2004, the American Jobs Creation Act (“the Jobs Act”) was signed into law. The Jobs Act includes a deduction for 85% of certain foreign earnings that are repatriated. In 2005, Altria Group, Inc. repatriated $6.0 billion of earnings under the provisions of the Jobs Act. Deferred taxes had previously been provided for a portion of the dividends remitted. The reversal of the deferred taxes more than offset the tax costs to repatriate the earnings and resulted in a net tax reduction of $372 million in the 2005 consolidated income tax provision. This reduction was included in the consolidated statement of earnings as an estimated benefit of $209 million in the second quarter and was subsequently revised to $168 million in the fourth quarter. Altria Group, Inc. recorded an additional $204 million tax benefit, which resulted from a favorable foreign tax law ruling that was received in the third quarter of 2005 related to the repatriation of earnings under the Jobs Act.

 

The Jobs Act also provides tax relief to U.S. domestic manufacturers by providing a tax deduction related to a percentage of the lesser of “qualified production activities income” or taxable income. The deduction, which was 3% in 2005, increases to 9% by 2010. In accordance with SFAS No. 109, Altria Group, Inc. will recognize these benefits in the year earned. The tax benefit in 2005 was approximately $60 million.

 

59


Exhibit 13

 

 

The effective income tax rate on pre-tax earnings differed from the U.S. federal statutory rate for the following reasons for the years ended December 31, 2005, 2004 and 2003:

 

     2005

    2004

    2003

 

U.S. federal statutory rate

   35.0 %   35.0 %   35.0 %

Increase (decrease) resulting from:

                  

State and local income taxes, net of federal tax benefit

   1.4     1.8     1.8  

Benefit related to dividend repatriation under the Jobs Act

   (2.4 )            

Reversal of taxes no longer required

   (0.9 )   (3.1 )   (0.5 )

Foreign rate differences

   (3.3 )   (3.6 )   (4.1 )

Foreign dividend repatriation cost

         2.2     3.7  

Other

   0.1     0.1     (1.0 )
    

 

 

Effective tax rate

   29.9 %   32.4 %   34.9 %
    

 

 

 

The tax provision in 2005 includes a $372 million benefit related to dividend repatriation under the Jobs Act in 2005, the reversal of $82 million of tax accruals no longer required at Kraft, the majority of which was in the first quarter, as well as other benefits, including the impact of the domestic manufacturers’ deduction under the Jobs Act and lower repatriation costs. The tax provision in 2004 includes the reversal of $355 million of tax accruals that are no longer required due to foreign tax events that were resolved during the first quarter of 2004 ($35 million) and the second quarter of 2004 ($320 million), and an $81 million favorable resolution of an outstanding tax item at Kraft, the majority of which occurred in the third quarter. The tax provision in 2003 reflects reversals of $74 million of state tax liabilities, net of federal tax benefit, that were no longer required.

 

Altria Group, Inc. is regularly audited by federal, state and foreign tax authorities, and these audits are at various stages at any given time. Altria Group, Inc. anticipates several domestic and foreign audits will close in 2006 with favorable settlements. Any tax contingency reserves in excess of additional assessed liabilities will be reversed at the time the audits close.

 

The tax effects of temporary differences that gave rise to consumer products deferred income tax assets and liabilities consisted of the following at December 31, 2005 and 2004:

 

(in millions)    


   2005

    2004

 

Deferred income tax assets:

                

Accrued postretirement and postemployment benefits

   $ 1,534     $ 1,506  

Settlement charges

     1,228       1,229  

Other

     9       231  
    


 


Total deferred income tax assets

     2,771       2,966  
    


 


Deferred income tax liabilities:

                

Trade names

     (4,341 )     (4,010 )

Unremitted earnings

     (250 )     (971 )

Property, plant and equipment

     (2,404 )     (2,547 )

Prepaid pension costs

     (1,519 )     (1,485 )
    


 


Total deferred income tax liabilities

     (8,514 )     (9,013 )
    


 


Net deferred income tax liabilities

   $ (5,743 )   $ (6,047 )
    


 


 

To conform with the current year’s presentation, the amounts shown above at December 31, 2004 have been revised from previously reported amounts to reflect state deferred tax amounts that were previously included in other liabilities on the consolidated balance sheet. As a result, deferred income tax liabilities on the December 31, 2004 consolidated balance sheet increased $618 million from $7,677 million to $8,295 million, with a corresponding reduction in other liabilities.

 

Financial services deferred income tax liabilities are primarily attributable to temporary differences relating to net investments in finance leases.

 

 

 

Note 15.

 

Segment Reporting:

 

The products of ALG’s subsidiaries include cigarettes and other tobacco products, and food (consisting principally of a wide variety of snacks, beverages, cheese, grocery products and convenient meals). Another subsidiary of ALG, PMCC, maintains a portfolio of leveraged and direct finance leases. The products and services of these subsidiaries constitute Altria Group, Inc.’s reportable segments of domestic tobacco, international tobacco, North American food, international food and financial services.

 

Altria Group, Inc.’s management reviews operating companies income to evaluate segment performance and allocate resources. Operating companies income for the segments excludes general corporate expenses and amortization of intangibles. Interest and other debt expense, net (consumer products), and provision for income taxes are centrally managed at the ALG level and, accordingly, such items are not presented by segment since they are excluded from the measure of segment profitability reviewed by Altria Group, Inc.’s management. Altria Group, Inc.’s assets are managed on a worldwide basis by major products and, accordingly, asset information is reported for the tobacco, food and financial services segments. As described in Note 2. Summary of Significant Accounting Policies , intangible assets and related amortization are principally attributable to the food and international tobacco businesses. Other assets consist primarily of cash and cash equivalents and the investment in SABMiller. The accounting policies of the segments are the same as those described in Note 2.

 

60


Exhibit 13

 

 

Segment data were as follows:

 

(in millions)

For the Years Ended December 31,    


   2005

    2004

    2003

 

Net revenues:

                        

Domestic tobacco

   $ 18,134     $ 17,511     $ 17,001  

International tobacco

     45,288       39,536       33,389  

North American food

     23,293       22,060       20,937  

International food

     10,820       10,108       9,561  

Financial services

     319       395       432  
    


 


 


Net revenues

   $ 97,854     $ 89,610     $ 81,320  
    


 


 


Earnings from continuing operations before income taxes, minority interest, and equity earnings, net:

                        

Operating companies income:

                        

Domestic tobacco

   $ 4,581     $ 4,405     $ 3,889  

International tobacco

     7,825       6,566       6,286  

North American food

     3,831       3,870       4,658  

International food

     1,122       933       1,393  

Financial services

     31       144       313  

Amortization of intangibles

     (28 )     (17 )     (9 )

General corporate expenses

     (770 )     (721 )     (771 )
    


 


 


Operating income

     16,592       15,180       15,759  

Interest and other debt expense, net

     (1,157 )     (1,176 )     (1,150 )
    


 


 


Earnings from continuing operations before income taxes, minority interest, and equity earnings, net

   $ 15,435     $ 14,004     $ 14,609  
    


 


 


 

Items affecting the comparability of results from continuing operations were as follows:

 

•     Domestic Tobacco Headquarters Relocation Charges – PM USA has substantially completed the move of its corporate headquarters from New York City to Richmond, Virginia, for which pre-tax charges of $4 million, $31 million and $69 million were recorded in the operating companies income of the domestic tobacco segment for the years ended December 31, 2005, 2004 and 2003, respectively. At December 31, 2005, a liability of $6 million remains on the consolidated balance sheet.

 

    Domestic Tobacco Loss on U.S. Tobacco Pool – As further discussed in Note 19. Contingencies , in October 2004, the Fair and Equitable Tobacco Reform Act of 2004 (“FETRA”) was signed into law. Under the provisions of FETRA, PM USA was obligated to cover its share of potential losses that the government may incur on the disposition of pool tobacco stock accumulated under the previous tobacco price support program. In 2005, PM USA recorded a $138 million expense for its share of the loss.

 

•     Domestic Tobacco Quota Buy-Out – The provisions of FETRA require PM USA, along with other manufacturers and importers of tobacco products, to make quarterly payments that will be used to compensate tobacco growers and quota holders affected by the legislation. Payments made by PM USA under FETRA will offset amounts due under the provisions of the National Tobacco Grower Settlement Trust (“NTGST”), a trust formerly established to compensate tobacco growers and quota holders. Disputes arose as to the applicability of FETRA to 2004 NTGST payments. During the third quarter of 2005, a North Carolina Supreme Court ruling determined that FETRA enactment had not triggered the offset provisions during 2004 and that tobacco companies were required to make full payment to the NTGST for the full year of 2004. The ruling, along with FETRA billings from the United States Department of Agriculture (“USDA”), brought clarity to the fact that FETRA is effective beginning in 2005. Accordingly, during the third quarter of 2005, PM USA reversed a prior year accrual for FETRA payments applicable to 2004 in the amount of $115 million.

 

•     Domestic Tobacco Legal Settlement – During 2003, PM USA and certain other defendants reached an agreement with a class of U.S. tobacco growers and quota holders to resolve a lawsuit related to tobacco leaf purchases. During 2003, PM USA recorded pre-tax charges of $202 million for its obligations under the agreement. The pre-tax charges are included in the operating companies income of the domestic tobacco segment.

 

•     International Tobacco E.C. Agreement – In July 2004, PMI entered into an agreement with the European Commission (“E.C.”) and 10 member states of the European Union that provides for broad cooperation with European law enforcement agencies on anti-contraband and anti-counterfeit efforts. The agreement resolves all disputes between the parties relating to these issues. Under the terms of the agreement, PMI will make 13 payments over 12 years, including an initial payment of $250 million, which was recorded as a pre-tax charge against its earnings in 2004. The agreement calls for additional payments of approximately $150 million on the first anniversary of the agreement (this payment was made in July 2005), approximately $100 million on the second anniversary and approximately $75 million each year thereafter for 10 years, each of which is to be adjusted based on certain variables, including PMI’s market share in the European Union in the year preceding payment. Because future additional payments are subject to these variables, PMI will record charges for them as an expense in cost of sales when product is shipped.

 

•     Inventory Sale in Italy – During the first quarter of 2005, PMI made a one-time inventory sale to its new distributor in Italy, resulting in a $96 million pre-tax operating companies income benefit for the international tobacco segment. During the second quarter of 2005, the new distributor reduced its inventories by approximately 1.0 billion units, resulting in lower shipments for PMI. The net impact of these actions was a benefit to PMI’s pre-tax operating companies income of approximately $70 million for the year ended December 31, 2005.

 

•     Asset Impairment and Exit Costs – See Note 3. Asset Impairment and Exit Costs , for a breakdown of these charges by segment.

 

•     (Gains)/Losses on Sales of Businesses, net – During 2005, operating companies income of the international food segment included pre-tax gains on sales of businesses of $109 million, primarily related to the sale of Kraft’s desserts assets in the U.K. During 2004, Kraft sold a Brazilian snack nuts business and trademarks associated with a candy business in Norway, and recorded aggregate pre-tax losses of $3 million. During 2003, Kraft sold a European rice business and a branded fresh cheese business in Italy and recorded aggregate pre-tax gains of $31 million.

 

•     Provision for Airline Industry Exposure – As discussed in Note 8. Finance Assets, net , during 2005, PMCC increased its allowance for losses by $200 million, reflecting its exposure to the troubled airline industry, particularly to Delta and Northwest, both of which filed for bankruptcy protection during September 2005. In addition, during 2004 and 2002, in recognition of the economic

 

61


Exhibit 13

 

 

downturn in the airline industry, PMCC increased its allowance for losses by $140 million and $290 million, respectively.

 

See Notes 4 and 5, respectively, regarding divestitures and acquisitions.

 

(in millions)

For the Years Ended December 31,        


   2005

   2004

   2003

Depreciation expense from continuing operations:

                    

Domestic tobacco

   $ 208    $ 203    $ 194

International tobacco

     509      453      370

North American food

     551      555      533

International food

     316      309      266
    

  

  

       1,584      1,520      1,363

Other

     61      66      63
    

  

  

Total depreciation expense from continuing operations

     1,645      1,586      1,426

Depreciation expense from discontinued operations

     2      4      5
    

  

  

Total depreciation expense

   $ 1,647    $ 1,590    $ 1,431
    

  

  

Assets:

                    

Tobacco

   $ 32,370    $ 27,472    $ 23,298

Food

     58,626      60,760      59,735

Financial services

     7,408      7,845      8,540
    

  

  

       98,404      96,077      91,573

Other

     9,545      5,571      4,602
    

  

  

Total assets

   $ 107,949    $ 101,648    $ 96,175
    

  

  

Capital expenditures from continuing operations:

                    

Domestic tobacco

   $ 228    $ 185    $ 154

International tobacco

     736      711      586

North American food

     720      613      667

International food

     451      389      402
    

  

  

       2,135      1,898      1,809

Other

     71      11      149
    

  

  

Total capital expenditures from continuing operations

     2,206      1,909      1,958

Capital expenditures from discontinued operations

            4      16
    

  

  

Total capital expenditures

   $ 2,206    $ 1,913    $ 1,974
    

  

  

 

Altria Group, Inc.’s operations outside the United States, which are principally in the tobacco and food businesses, are organized into geographic regions within each segment, with Europe being the most significant. Total tobacco and food segment net revenues attributable to customers located in Germany, Altria Group, Inc.’s largest European market, were $9.3 billion, $9.0 billion and $8.5 billion for the years ended December 31, 2005, 2004 and 2003, respectively.

 

Geographic data for net revenues and long-lived assets (which consist of all financial services assets and non-current consumer products assets, other than goodwill and other intangible assets, net) were as follows:

 

(in millions)

For the Years Ended December 31,        


   2005

   2004

   2003

Net revenues:

                    

United States - domestic

   $ 39,273    $ 37,729    $ 36,312

   - export

     3,630      3,493      3,528

Europe

     39,880      36,163      30,813

Other

     15,071      12,225      10,667
    

  

  

Total net revenues

   $ 97,854    $ 89,610    $ 81,320
    

  

  

Long-lived assets:

                    

United States

   $ 27,793    $ 26,347    $ 25,825

Europe

     6,716      6,829      6,048

Other

     4,244      3,459      3,375
    

  

  

Total long-lived assets

   $ 38,753    $ 36,635    $ 35,248
    

  

  

 

Note 16.

 

Benefit Plans:

 

Altria Group, Inc. sponsors noncontributory defined benefit pension plans covering substantially all U.S. employees. Pension coverage for employees of ALG’s non-U.S. subsidiaries is provided, to the extent deemed appropriate, through separate plans, many of which are governed by local statutory requirements. In addition, ALG and its U.S. and Canadian subsidiaries provide health care and other benefits to substantially all retired employees. Health care benefits for retirees outside the United States and Canada are generally covered through local government plans.

 

The plan assets and benefit obligations of Altria Group, Inc.’s U.S. and Canadian pension plans are measured at December 31 of each year, and all other non-U.S. pension plans are measured at September 30 of each year. The benefit obligations of Altria Group, Inc.’s postretirement plans are measured at December 31 of each year.

 

62


Exhibit 13

 

 

Pension Plans

 

Obligations and Funded Status

 

The benefit obligations, plan assets and funded status of Altria Group, Inc.’s pension plans at December 31, 2005 and 2004, were as follows:

 

     U.S. Plans

    Non-U.S. Plans

 

(in millions)    


   2005

    2004

    2005

    2004

 

Benefit obligation at January 1

   $ 10,896     $ 9,683     $ 6,201     $ 5,156  

Service cost

     277       247       206       180  

Interest cost

     616       613       283       254  

Benefits paid

     (778 )     (677 )     (274 )     (315 )

Termination, settlement and curtailment

     50       36       (5 )        

Actuarial losses

     268       988       727       175  

Currency

                     (392 )     546  

Acquisitions

                     71       8  

Other

     21       6       69       197  
    


 


 


 


Benefit obligation at December 31

     11,350       10,896       6,886       6,201  
    


 


 


 


Fair value of plan assets at January 1

     10,569       9,555       4,476       3,433  

Actual return on plan assets

     686       1,044       759       361  

Contributions

     737       659       497       419  

Benefits paid

     (767 )     (686 )     (189 )     (139 )

Termination, settlement and curtailment

                     (11 )        

Currency

                     (257 )     392  

Actuarial (losses) gains

     (3 )     (3 )     (3 )     10  

Acquisitions

                     24          
    


 


 


 


Fair value of plan assets at December 31

     11,222       10,569       5,296       4,476  
    


 


 


 


Funded status (plan assets less than benefit obligations) at December 31

     (128 )     (327 )     (1,590 )     (1,725 )

Unrecognized actuarial losses

     4,469       4,350       1,875       1,727  

Unrecognized prior service cost

     123       120       93       108  

Additional minimum liability

     (177 )     (206 )     (787 )     (663 )

Unrecognized net transition obligation

                     8       9  

Net prepaid pension asset (liability) recognized

   $ 4,287     $ 3,937     $ (401 )   $ (544 )
    


 


 


 


 

The combined U.S. and non-U.S. pension plans resulted in a net prepaid pension asset of $3.9 billion and $3.4 billion at December 31, 2005 and 2004, respectively. These amounts were recognized in Altria Group, Inc.’s consolidated balance sheets at December 31, 2005 and 2004, as other assets of $5.7 billion and $5.2 billion, respectively, for those plans in which plan assets exceeded their accumulated benefit obligations, and as other liabilities of $1.8 billion at December 31, 2005 and 2004 for those plans in which the accumulated benefit obligations exceeded their plan assets.

 

For U.S. and non-U.S. pension plans, the change in the additional minimum liability in 2005 and 2004 was as follows:

 

     U.S. Plans

    Non-U.S. Plans

 

(in millions)    


   2005

   2004

    2005

    2004

 

(Increase) decrease in minimum liability included in other comprehensive earnings (losses), net of tax

   $ 19    $ (5 )   $ (73 )   $ (48 )
    

  


 


 


 

The accumulated benefit obligation, which represents benefits earned to date, for the U.S. pension plans was $10.1 billion and $9.5 billion at December 31, 2005 and 2004, respectively. The accumulated benefit obligation for non-U.S. pension plans was $6.1 billion and $5.5 billion at December 31, 2005 and 2004, respectively.

 

For U.S. plans with accumulated benefit obligations in excess of plan assets, the projected benefit obligation, accumulated benefit obligation and fair value of plan assets were $488 million, $384 million and $18 million, respectively, as of December 31, 2005, and $584 million, $415 million and $15 million, respectively, as of December 31, 2004. At December 31, 2005, the majority of these relate to plans for salaried employees that cannot be funded under I.R.S. regulations. For non-U.S. plans with accumulated benefit obligations in excess of plan assets, the projected benefit obligation, accumulated benefit obligation and fair value of plan assets were $4,583 million, $4,052 million and $2,956 million, respectively, as of December 31, 2005, and $3,689 million, $3,247 million and $2,013 million, respectively, as of December 31, 2004.

 

The following weighted-average assumptions were used to determine Altria Group, Inc.’s benefit obligations under the plans at December 31:

 

     U.S. Plans

    Non-U.S. Plans

 
     2005

    2004

    2005

    2004

 

Discount rate

   5.64 %   5.75 %   4.04 %   4.75 %

Rate of compensation increase

   4.20     4.20     3.13     3.28  
    

 

 

 

 

Altria Group, Inc.’s 2005 year-end U.S. and Canadian plans discount rates were developed from a model portfolio of high-quality, fixed-income debt instruments with durations that match the expected future cash flows of the benefit obligations. The 2005 year-end discount rates for Altria Group, Inc.’s non-U.S. plans were developed from local bond indices that match local benefit obligations as closely as possible.

 

63


Exhibit 13

 

 

Components of Net Periodic Benefit Cost

 

Net periodic pension cost consisted of the following for the years ended December 31, 2005, 2004 and 2003:

 

     U.S. Plans

    Non-U.S. Plans

 

(in millions)    


   2005

    2004

    2003

    2005

    2004

    2003

 

Service cost

   $ 277     $ 247     $ 234     $ 206     $ 180     $ 140  

Interest cost

     616       613       579       283       254       217  

Expected return on plan assets

     (870 )     (932 )     (936 )     (352 )     (318 )     (257 )

Amortization:

                                                

Unrecognized net loss from experience differences

     271       157       46       70       50       29  

Prior service cost

     19       16       16       14       14       11  

Termination, settlement and curtailment

     92       48       68       27       3          
    


 


 


 


 


 


Net periodic pension cost

   $ 405     $ 149     $ 7     $ 248     $ 183     $ 140  
    


 


 


 


 


 


 

During 2005, 2004 and 2003, employees left Altria Group, Inc. under voluntary early retirement and workforce reduction programs. These events resulted in settlement losses, curtailment losses and termination benefits for the U.S. plans in 2005, 2004 and 2003 of $19 million, $7 million and $17 million, respectively. In addition, retiring employees of Kraft North America Commercial (“KNAC”) elected lump-sum payments, resulting in settlement losses of $73 million, $41 million and $51 million in 2005, 2004 and 2003, respectively. During 2005 and 2004, non-U.S. plant closures and early retirement benefits resulted in curtailment and settlement losses of $27 million and $3 million, respectively.

 

The following weighted-average assumptions were used to determine Altria Group, Inc.’s net pension cost for the years ended December 31:

 

     U.S. Plans

    Non-U.S. Plans

 
     2005

    2004

    2003

    2005

    2004

    2003

 

Discount rate

   5.75 %   6.25 %   6.50 %   4.75 %   4.87 %   4.99 %

Expected rate of return on plan assets

   8.00     9.00     9.00     7.54     7.82     7.81  

Rate of compensation increase

   4.20     4.20     4.20     3.28     3.40     3.30  
    

 

 

 

 

 

 

Altria Group, Inc.’s expected rate of return on plan assets is determined by the plan assets’ historical long-term investment performance, current asset allocation and estimates of future long-term returns by asset class.

 

ALG and certain of its subsidiaries sponsor deferred profit-sharing plans covering certain salaried, non-union and union employees. Contributions and costs are determined generally as a percentage of pre-tax earnings, as defined by the plans. Certain other subsidiaries of ALG also maintain defined contribution plans. Amounts charged to expense for defined contribution plans totaled $256 million, $244 million and $235 million in 2005, 2004 and 2003, respectively.

 

Plan Assets

 

The percentage of fair value of pension plan assets at December 31, 2005 and 2004, was as follows:

 

     U.S. Plans

    Non-U.S. Plans

 

Asset Category    


   2005

    2004

    2005

    2004

 

Equity securities

   74 %   72 %   60 %   59 %

Debt securities

   25     27     35     35  

Real estate

               3     4  

Other

   1     1     2     2  
    

 

 

 

Total

   100 %   100 %   100 %   100 %
    

 

 

 

 

Altria Group, Inc.’s investment strategy is based on an expectation that equity securities will outperform debt securities over the long term. Accordingly, the composition of Altria Group, Inc.’s U.S. plan assets is broadly characterized as a 70%/30% allocation between equity and debt securities. The strategy utilizes indexed U.S. equity securities, actively managed international equity securities and actively managed investment grade debt securities (which constitute 80% or more of debt securities) with lesser allocations to high-yield and international debt securities.

 

For the plans outside the U.S., the investment strategy is subject to local regulations and the asset/liability profiles of the plans in each individual country. These specific circumstances result in a level of equity exposure that is typically less than the U.S. plans. In aggregate, the actual asset allocations of the non-U.S. plans are virtually identical to their respective asset policy targets.

 

Altria Group, Inc. attempts to mitigate investment risk by rebalancing between equity and debt asset classes as Altria Group, Inc.’s contributions and monthly benefit payments are made.

 

Altria Group, Inc. presently makes, and plans to make, contributions, to the extent that they do not generate an excise tax liability, in order to maintain plan assets in excess of the accumulated benefit obligation of its funded U.S. and non-U.S. plans. Currently, Altria Group, Inc. anticipates making contributions of approximately $410 million in 2006 to its U.S. plans and approximately $216 million in 2006 to its non-U.S. plans, based on current tax law. These amounts include approximately $140 million and $106 million that Kraft anticipates making to its U.S. and non-U.S. plans, respectively. However, these estimates are subject to change as a result of changes in tax and other benefit laws, as well as asset performance significantly above or below the assumed long-term rate of return on pension assets, or significant changes in interest rates.

 

The estimated future benefit payments from the Altria Group, Inc. pension plans at December 31, 2005, were as follows:

 

(in millions)    


   U.S. Plans

   Non-U.S. Plans

2006

   $   576    $   273

2007

   650    280

2008

   615    292

2009

   672    306

2010

   729    318

2011-2015

   4,472    1,716

 

64


Exhibit 13

 

 

Postretirement Benefit Plans

 

Net postretirement health care costs consisted of the following for the years ended December 31, 2005, 2004 and 2003:

 

(in millions)    


   2005

    2004

    2003

 

Service cost

   $ 96     $ 85     $ 80  

Interest cost

     280       280       270  

Amortization:

                        

Unrecognized net loss from experience differences

     82       57       47  

Unrecognized prior service cost

     (29 )     (25 )     (27 )

Other expense

     2       1       7  
    


 


 


Net postretirement health care costs

   $ 431     $ 398     $ 377  
    


 


 


 

During 2005, 2004 and 2003, Altria Group, Inc. instituted early retirement programs. These actions resulted in special termination benefits and curtailment losses of $2 million, $1 million and $7 million in 2005, 2004 and 2003, respectively, which are included in other expense, above.

 

In December 2003, the United States enacted into law the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement and Modernization Act of 2003 (the “Act”). The Act establishes a prescription drug benefit under Medicare, known as “Medicare Part D,” and a federal subsidy to sponsors of retiree health care benefit plans that provide a benefit that is at least actuarially equivalent to Medicare Part D.

 

In May 2004, the FASB issued FASB Staff Position No. 106-2, “Accounting and Disclosure Requirements Related to the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement and Modernization Act of 2003” (“FSP 106-2”). FSP 106-2 requires companies to account for the effect of the subsidy on benefits attributable to past service as an actuarial experience gain and as a reduction of the service cost component of net postretirement health care costs for amounts attributable to current service, if the benefit provided is at least actuarially equivalent to Medicare Part D.

 

Altria Group, Inc. adopted FSP 106-2 in the third quarter of 2004. The impact for 2005 and 2004 was a reduction of pre-tax net postretirement health care costs and an increase in net earnings, which is included above as a reduction of the following:

 

(in millions)    


   2005

     2004

Service cost

   $ 10      $ 4

Interest cost

     28        11

Amortization of unrecognized net loss from experience differences

     29        13
    

    

Reduction of pre-tax net postretirement health care costs and an increase in net earnings

   $ 67      $ 28
    

    

Reduction related to Kraft included above

   $ 55      $ 24
    

    

 

In addition, as of July 1, 2004, Altria Group, Inc. reduced its accumulated postretirement benefit obligation for the subsidy related to benefits attributed to past service by $375 million and decreased its unrecognized actuarial losses by the same amount.

 

The following weighted-average assumptions were used to determine Altria Group, Inc.’s net postretirement cost for the years ended December 31:

 

     U.S. Plans

    Canadian Plans

 
     2005

    2004

    2003

    2005

    2004

    2003

 

Discount rate

   5.75 %   6.25 %   6.50 %   5.75 %   6.50 %   6.75 %

Health care cost trend rate

   8.00     8.90     8.00     9.50     8.00     7.00  

 

Altria Group, Inc.’s postretirement health care plans are not funded. The changes in the accumulated benefit obligation and net amount accrued at December 31, 2005 and 2004, were as follows:

 

 

 

 

 

(in millions)    


   2005

    2004

 

Accumulated postretirement benefit obligation at January 1

   $ 4,819     $ 4,599  

Service cost

     96       85  

Interest cost

     280       280  

Benefits paid

     (291 )     (305 )

Curtailments

     2       1  

Plan amendments

     19       (43 )

Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement and Modernization Act of 2003

             (375 )

Currency

     2       10  

Assumption changes

     352       474  

Actuarial losses

     116       93  
    


 


Accumulated postretirement benefit obligation at December 31

     5,395       4,819  

Unrecognized actuarial losses

     (1,857 )     (1,466 )

Unrecognized prior service cost

     173       221  
    


 


Accrued postretirement health care costs

   $ 3,711     $ 3,574  
    


 


 

The current portion of Altria Group, Inc.’s accrued postretirement health care costs of $299 million and $289 million at December 31, 2005 and 2004, respectively, is included in other accrued liabilities on the consolidated balance sheets.

 

The following weighted-average assumptions were used to determine Altria Group, Inc.’s postretirement benefit obligations at December 31:

 

     U.S. Plans

    Canadian Plans

 
     2005

    2004

    2005

    2004

 

Discount rate

   5.64 %   5.75 %   5.00 %   5.75 %

Health care cost trend rate assumed for next year

   8.00     8.00     9.00     9.50  

Ultimate trend rate

   5.00     5.00     6.00     6.00  

Year that the rate reaches the ultimate trend rate

   2009     2008     2012     2012  
    

 

 

 

 

65


Exhibit 13

 

 

Assumed health care cost trend rates have a significant effect on the amounts reported for the health care plans. A one-percentage-point change in assumed health care cost trend rates would have the following effects as of December 31, 2005:

 

    

One-Percentage-Point

Increase


  

One-Percentage-Point

Decrease


Effect on total of service and interest cost

   13.8%    (11.2)%

Effect on postretirement benefit obligation

   10.0        (8.2)  
    
  

 

Altria Group, Inc.’s estimated future benefit payments for its postretirement health care plans at December 31, 2005, were as follows:

 

     U.S. Plans

   Canadian Plans

     (in millions)

2006

   $   292    $  7

2007

       307       7

2008

       315       8

2009

       323       8

2010

       330       8

2011-2015

   1,774    48
    
  

 

Postemployment Benefit Plans

 

ALG and certain of its subsidiaries sponsor postemployment benefit plans covering substantially all salaried and certain hourly employees. The cost of these plans is charged to expense over the working life of the covered employees. Net postemployment costs consisted of the following for the years ended December 31, 2005, 2004 and 2003:

 

(in millions)    


   2005

   2004

   2003

Service cost

   $ 18    $ 18    $ 24

Amortization of unrecognized net loss

     9      10      11

Other expense

     219      226      69
    

  

  

Net postemployment costs

   $ 246    $ 254    $ 104
    

  

  

 

As discussed in Note 3. Asset Impairment and Exit Costs , certain employees left Kraft under the restructuring program and certain salaried employees left Altria Group, Inc. under separation programs. These programs resulted in incremental postemployment costs, which are included in other expense, above.

 

Altria Group, Inc.’s postemployment plans are not funded. The changes in the benefit obligations of the plans at December 31, 2005 and 2004, were as follows:

 

(in millions)    


   2005

    2004

 

Accumulated benefit obligation at January 1

   $ 457     $ 480  

Service cost

     18       18  

Kraft restructuring program

     139       167  

Benefits paid

     (318 )     (280 )

Actuarial losses

     237       72  
    


 


Accumulated benefit obligation at December 31

     533       457  

Unrecognized experience (loss) gain

     (86 )     30  
    


 


Accrued postemployment costs

   $ 447     $ 487  
    


 


 

The accumulated benefit obligation was determined using an assumed ultimate annual turnover rate of 0.5% and 0.4% in 2005 and 2004, respectively, assumed compensation cost increases of 4.3% and 4.2% in 2005 and 2004, respectively, and assumed benefits as defined in the respective plans. Postemployment costs arising from actions that offer employees benefits in excess of those specified in the respective plans are charged to expense when incurred.

 

Note 17.

 

Additional Information:

 

The amounts shown below are for continuing operations.

 

(in millions)

For the Years Ended December 31,    


   2005

    2004

    2003

 

Research and development expense

   $ 943     $ 809     $ 756  
    


 


 


Advertising expense

   $ 1,784     $ 1,763     $ 1,623  
    


 


 


Interest and other debt expense, net:

                        

Interest expense

   $ 1,556     $ 1,417     $ 1,367  

Interest income

     (399 )     (241 )     (217 )
    


 


 


     $ 1,157     $ 1,176     $ 1,150  
    


 


 


Interest expense of financial services operations included in cost of sales

   $ 107     $ 106     $ 108  
    


 


 


Rent expense

   $ 748     $ 738     $ 709  
    


 


 


 

Minimum rental commitments under non-cancelable operating leases in effect at December 31, 2005, were as follows:

 

(in millions)    


              

2006

   $ 436            

2007

     329            

2008

     232            

2009

     157            

2010

     121            

Thereafter

     344            
    

           
     $ 1,619            
    

           

 

Note 18.

 

Financial Instruments:

 

·    Derivative financial instruments: ALG’s subsidiaries operate globally, with manufacturing and sales facilities in various locations around the world. ALG and its subsidiaries utilize certain financial instruments to manage its foreign currency and commodity exposures. Derivative financial instruments are used by ALG and its subsidiaries, principally to reduce exposures to market risks resulting from fluctuations in foreign exchange rates and commodity prices, by creating offsetting exposures. Altria Group, Inc. is not a party to leveraged derivatives and, by policy, does not use derivative financial instruments for speculative purposes. Financial instruments qualifying for hedge accounting must maintain a specified level of effectiveness between the hedging instrument and the item being hedged, both at inception and throughout

 

66


Exhibit 13

 

 

the hedged period. Altria Group, Inc. formally documents the nature and relationships between the hedging instruments and hedged items, as well as its risk-management objectives, strategies for undertaking the various hedge transactions and method of assessing hedge effectiveness. Additionally, for hedges of forecasted transactions, the significant characteristics and expected terms of the forecasted transaction must be specifically identified, and it must be probable that each forecasted transaction will occur. If it were deemed probable that the forecasted transaction will not occur, the gain or loss would be recognized in earnings currently.

 

Altria Group, Inc. uses forward foreign exchange contracts and foreign currency options to mitigate its exposure to changes in exchange rates from third-party and intercompany actual and forecasted transactions. The primary currencies to which Altria Group, Inc. is exposed include the Japanese yen, Swiss franc and the euro. At December 31, 2005 and 2004, Altria Group, Inc. had foreign exchange option and forward contracts with aggregate notional amounts of $4.8 billion and $9.7 billion, respectively. The effective portion of unrealized gains and losses associated with forward contracts and option contracts is deferred as a component of accumulated other comprehensive earnings (losses) until the underlying hedged transactions are reported on Altria Group, Inc.’s consolidated statement of earnings.

 

In addition, Altria Group, Inc. uses foreign currency swaps to mitigate its exposure to changes in exchange rates related to foreign currency denominated debt. These swaps typically convert fixed-rate foreign currency denominated debt to fixed-rate debt denominated in the functional currency of the borrowing entity. A substantial portion of the foreign currency swap agreements is accounted for as cash flow hedges. The unrealized gain (loss) relating to foreign currency swap agreements that do not qualify for hedge accounting treatment under U.S. GAAP was insignificant as of December 31, 2005 and 2004. At December 31, 2005 and 2004, the notional amounts of foreign currency swap agreements aggregated $2.3 billion and $2.7 billion, respectively. Aggregate maturities of foreign currency swap agreements at December 31, 2005, were $1.0 billion in 2006 and $1.3 billion in 2008.

 

Altria Group, Inc. also designates certain foreign currency denominated debt as net investment hedges of foreign operations. During the year ended December 31, 2005, these hedges of net investments resulted in a gain, net of income taxes, of $369 million, and in the years ended December 31, 2004 and 2003, resulted in losses, net of income taxes, of $344 million and $286 million, respectively. These gains and losses were reported as a component of accumulated other comprehensive earnings (losses) within currency translation adjustments.

 

Kraft is exposed to price risk related to forecasted purchases of certain commodities used as raw materials. Accordingly, Kraft uses commodity forward contracts as cash flow hedges, primarily for coffee and cocoa. Commodity futures and options are also used to hedge the price of certain commodities, including milk, coffee, cocoa, wheat, corn, sugar and soybean oil. At December 31, 2005 and 2004, Kraft had net long commodity positions of $521 million and $443 million, respectively. In general, commodity forward contracts qualify for the normal purchase exception under U.S. GAAP. The effective portion of unrealized gains and losses on commodity futures and option contracts is deferred as a component of accumulated other comprehensive earnings (losses) and is recognized as a component of cost of sales when the related inventory is sold. Unrealized gains or losses on net commodity positions were immaterial at December 31, 2005 and 2004.

 

During the years ended December 31, 2005, 2004 and 2003, ineffectiveness related to fair value hedges and cash flow hedges was not material. Altria Group, Inc. is hedging forecasted transactions for periods not exceeding the next fifteen months. At December 31, 2005, Altria Group, Inc. estimates that an insignificant amount of derivative gains, net of income taxes, reported in accumulated other comprehensive earnings (losses) will be reclassified to the consolidated statement of earnings within the next twelve months.

 

Derivative gains or losses reported in accumulated other comprehensive earnings (losses) are a result of qualifying hedging activity. Transfers of gains or losses from accumulated other comprehensive earnings (losses) to earnings are offset by the corresponding gains or losses on the underlying hedged item. Hedging activity affected accumulated other comprehensive earnings (losses), net of income taxes, during the years ended December 31, 2005, 2004 and 2003, as follows:

 

(in millions)        


   2005

    2004

    2003

 

Loss as of January 1

   $ (14 )   $ (83 )   $ (77 )

Derivative (gains) losses transferred to earnings

     (95 )     86       (42 )

Change in fair value

     133       (17 )     36  
    


 


 


Gain (loss) as of December 31

   $ 24     $ (14 )   $ (83 )
    


 


 


 

·    Credit exposure and credit risk: Altria Group, Inc. is exposed to credit loss in the event of nonperformance by counterparties. Altria Group, Inc. does not anticipate nonperformance within its consumer products businesses. However, see Note 8. Finance Assets, net regarding certain aircraft and other leases.

 

·    Fair value: The aggregate fair value, based on market quotes, of Altria Group, Inc.’s total debt at December 31, 2005, was $24.6 billion, as compared with its carrying value of $23.9 billion. The aggregate fair value of Altria Group, Inc.’s total debt at December 31, 2004, was $24.2 billion, as compared with its carrying value of $23.0 billion.

 

The fair value, based on market quotes, of Altria Group, Inc.’s equity investment in SABMiller at December 31, 2005, was $7.8 billion, as compared with its carrying value of $3.4 billion. The fair value of Altria Group, Inc.’s equity investment in SABMiller at December 31, 2004, was $7.1 billion, as compared with its carrying value of $2.5 billion.

 

See Notes 9 and 10 for additional disclosures of fair value for short-term borrowings and long-term debt.

 

Note 19.

 

Contingencies:

 

Legal proceedings covering a wide range of matters are pending or threatened in various United States and foreign jurisdictions against ALG, its subsidiaries and affiliates, including PM USA and PMI, as well as their respective indemnitees. Various types of claims are raised in these proceedings, including product liability, consumer protection, antitrust, tax, contraband shipments, patent infringement, employment matters, claims for contribution and claims of competitors and distributors.

 

Overview of Tobacco-Related Litigation

 

·    Types and Number of Cases: Pending claims related to tobacco products generally fall within the following categories: (i) smoking and health cases alleging personal injury brought on behalf of individual plaintiffs, (ii) smoking and health cases primarily alleging personal injury and purporting to be brought on behalf of a class of individual plaintiffs, including cases in which the aggregated claims of a number of individual plaintiffs are to be tried in a

 

67


Exhibit 13

 

 

single proceeding, (iii) health care cost recovery cases brought by governmental (both domestic and foreign) and non-governmental plaintiffs seeking reimbursement for health care expenditures allegedly caused by cigarette smoking and/or disgorgement of profits, (iv) class action suits alleging that the uses of the terms “Lights” and “Ultra Lights” constitute deceptive and unfair trade practices, common law fraud, or violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”), and (v) other tobacco-related litigation. Other tobacco-related litigation includes suits by foreign governments seeking to recover damages resulting from the allegedly illegal importation of cigarettes into various jurisdictions, suits by former asbestos manufacturers seeking contribution or reimbursement for amounts expended in connection with the defense and payment of asbestos claims that were allegedly caused in whole or in part by cigarette smoking, and various antitrust suits. Damages claimed in some of the tobacco-related litigation range into the billions of dollars. Plaintiffs’ theories of recovery and the defenses raised in the smoking and health, health care cost recovery and Lights/Ultra Lights cases are discussed below.

 

The table below lists the number of certain tobacco-related cases pending in the United States against PM USA and, in some instances, ALG or PMI, as of December 31, 2005, December 31, 2004 and December 31, 2003, and a page reference to further discussions of each type of case.

 

Type of Case


 

Number of Cases
Pending as of
December 31,

2005


 

Number of Cases
Pending as of
December 31,

2004


 

Number of Cases
Pending as of
December 31,

2003


 

Page

References


Individual Smoking and

Health Cases (1)

  228   222   423   71

Smoking and Health Class

Actions and Aggregated

Claims Litigation (2)

  9   9   12   71

Health Care Cost Recovery

Actions

  4   10   13   72-74

Lights/Ultra Lights Class

Actions

  24   21   21   74

Tobacco Price Cases

  2   2   28   75

Cigarette Contraband Cases

  0   2   5   75-76

Asbestos Contribution Cases

  1   1   7   76

 
 
 
 

 

  (1) Does not include 2,640 cases brought by flight attendants seeking compensatory damages for personal injuries allegedly caused by exposure to environmental tobacco smoke (“ETS”). The flight attendants allege that they are members of an ETS smoking and health class action, which was settled in 1997. The terms of the court-approved settlement in that case allow class members to file individual lawsuits seeking compensatory damages, but prohibit them from seeking punitive damages. Also, does not include nine individual smoking and health cases brought against certain retailers that are indemnitees of PM USA.

 

  (2) Includes as one case the aggregated claims of 928 individuals that are proposed to be tried in a single proceeding in West Virginia. In December 2005, the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals ruled that the United States Constitution does not preclude a trial in two phases in this case. Issues related to defendants’ conduct, entitlement to punitive damages and a punitive damages multiplier, if any, would be determined in the first phase. The second phase would consist of individual trials to determine liability, if any, and compensatory damages.

 

There are also a number of other tobacco-related actions pending outside the United States against PMI and its affiliates and subsidiaries, including an estimated 132 individual smoking and health cases (Argentina (59), Australia (2), Brazil (54), Chile (3), Colombia (1), Israel (2), Italy (4), the Philippines (1), Poland (1), Scotland (1), Spain (2), Turkey (1) and Venezuela (1)), compared with approximately 121 such cases on December 31, 2004, and approximately 99 such cases on December 31, 2003. In addition, in Italy, 23 cases are pending in the Italian equivalent of small claims court where damages are limited to €2,000 per case, and four cases are pending in Finland and one in Israel against defendants that are indemnitees of a subsidiary of PMI.

 

In addition, as of December 31, 2005, there were three smoking and health putative class actions pending outside the United States against PMI in Brazil (1), Israel (1), and Poland (1) compared with three such cases on December 31, 2004, and six such cases on December 31, 2003. Four health care cost recovery actions are pending in Israel (1), Canada (1), France (1) and Spain (1) against PMI or its affiliates, and two Lights/Ultra Lights class actions are pending in Israel.

 

·    Pending and Upcoming Trials: Trial in one individual smoking and health case in which PM USA is a defendant began in a Missouri state court in January 2006. An estimated nine additional smoking and health cases against PM USA are scheduled for trial in 2006. Cases against other tobacco companies are also scheduled for trial through the end of 2006. Trial dates are subject to change.

 

·    Recent Trial Results: Since January 1999, verdicts have been returned in 43 smoking and health, Lights/Ultra Lights and health care cost recovery cases in which PM USA was a defendant. Verdicts in favor of PM USA and other defendants were returned in 27 of the 43 cases. These 27 cases were tried in California (4), Florida (9), Mississippi (1), Missouri (1), New Hampshire (1), New Jersey (1), New York (3), Ohio (2), Pennsylvania (1), Rhode Island (1), Tennessee (2), and West Virginia (1). Plaintiffs’ appeals or post-trial motions challenging the verdicts are pending in California, Florida, Missouri, and Pennsylvania. A motion for a new trial has been granted in one of the cases in Florida. In addition, in December 2002, a court dismissed an individual smoking and health case in California at the end of trial. Also, in July 2005, a jury in Tennessee returned a verdict in favor of PM USA in a case in which plaintiffs had challenged PM USA’s retail promotional and merchandising programs under the Robinson-Patman Act.

 

Of the 16 cases in which verdicts were returned in favor of plaintiffs, four have reached final resolution. A $17.8 million verdict against defendants in a health care cost recovery case (including $6.8 million against PM USA) was reversed, and all claims were dismissed with prejudice in February 2005 ( Blue Cross/Blue Shield ). In October 2004, after exhausting all appeals, PM USA paid $3.3 million (including interest of $285,000) in an individual smoking and health case in Florida ( Eastman ). In March 2005, after exhausting all appeals, PM USA paid $17 million (including interest of $6.4 million) in an individual smoking and health case in California ( Henley ). In December 2005, after exhausting all appeals, PM USA paid $328,759 (including interest of $78,259) as its share of the judgment amount and interest in a flight attendant ETS case in Florida ( French ) and will pay attorneys’ fees yet to be determined.

 

68


Exhibit 13

 

 

The chart below lists the verdict and post-trial developments in the remaining 12 pending cases that have gone to trial since January 1999 in which verdicts were returned in favor of plaintiffs.

Date


  

Location of

Court/Name

of Plaintiff


  

Type of Case


  

Verdict


  

Post-Trial Developments


March 2005   

New York/

Rose

  

Individual Smoking

and Health

   $3.42 million in compensatory damages against two defendants, including PM USA, and $17.1 million in punitive damages against PM USA.    In December 2005, PM USA’s post-trial motions challenging the verdict were denied by the trial court. PM USA has appealed.
October 2004   

Florida/

Arnitz

   Individual Smoking and Health    $240,000 against PM USA.    PM USA’s appeal is pending.
May 2004   

Louisiana/

Scott

   Smoking and Health Class Action    Approximately $590 million, against all defendants including PM USA, jointly and severally, to fund a 10-year smoking cessation program.    In June 2004, the state trial court entered judgment in the amount of the verdict of $590 million, plus prejudgment interest accruing from the date the suit commenced. As of December 31, 2005, the amount of prejudgment interest was approximately $390 million. PM USA’s share of the verdict and prejudgment interest has not been allocated. Defendants, including PM USA, have appealed. See “Scott Class Action” below.
November 2003   

Missouri/

Thompson

   Individual Smoking and Health    $2.1 million in compensatory damages against all defendants, including $837,403 against PM USA.    PM USA’s appeal is pending.
March 2003   

Illinois/

Price

   Lights/Ultra Lights Class Action    $7.1005 billion in compensatory damages and $3 billion in punitive damages against PM USA.    In December 2005, the Illinois Supreme Court reversed the trial court’s judgment in favor of the plaintiffs and remanded the case to the trial court with instructions to dismiss the case against PM USA. See the discussion of the Price case under the heading “Lights/Ultra Lights Cases.”
October 2002   

California/

Bullock

   Individual Smoking and Health    $850,000 in compensatory damages and $28 billion in punitive damages against PM USA.    In December 2002, the trial court reduced the punitive damages award to $28 million; PM USA and plaintiff have appealed.
June 2002   

Florida/

Lukacs

   Individual Smoking and Health    $37.5 million in compensatory damages against all defendants, including PM USA.    In March 2003, the trial court reduced the damages award to $24.86 million. PM USA’s share of the damages award is approximately $6 million. The court has not yet entered the judgment on the jury verdict. If a judgment is entered in this case, PM USA intends to appeal.
March 2002   

Oregon/

Schwarz

   Individual Smoking and Health    $168,500 in compensatory damages and $150 million in punitive damages against PM USA.    In May 2002, the trial court reduced the punitive damages award to $100 million; PM USA and plaintiff have appealed.

 

69


Exhibit 13

 

 

Date


  

Location of

Court/Name

of

Plaintiff


  

Type of Case


  

Verdict


  

Post-Trial Developments


June 2001   

California/

Boeken

  

Individual Smoking

and Health

   $5.5 million in compensatory damages and $3 billion in punitive damages against PM USA.    In August 2001, the trial court reduced the punitive damages award to $100 million. In September 2004, the California Second District Court of Appeal reduced the punitive damages award to $50 million but otherwise affirmed the judgment entered in the case. Plaintiff and PM USA each sought rehearing. In April 2005, the Court of Appeal reaffirmed the award amount set in its September 2004 ruling. In August 2005, the California Supreme Court refused to hear the petitions of PM USA and plaintiff for further review. Following the California Supreme Court’s refusal to hear the parties’ appeal, PM USA recorded a provision in the 2005 statement of earnings of approximately $80 million (including interest) in connection with this case. Plaintiff and PM USA have petitioned the United States Supreme Court for further review.
July 2000   

Florida/

Engle

  

Smoking

and Health Class Action

   $145 billion in punitive damages against all defendants, including $74 billion against PM USA.    In May 2003, the Florida Third District Court of Appeal reversed the judgment entered by the state trial court and instructed the trial court to order the decertification of the class. Plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration was denied in September 2003, and plaintiffs petitioned the Florida Supreme Court for further review. In May 2004, the Florida Supreme Court agreed to review the case, and the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in November 2004. See “ Engle Class Action ” below.
March 2000   

California/

Whiteley

   Individual Smoking and Health    $1.72 million in compensatory damages against PM USA and another defendant, and $10 million in punitive damages against each of PM USA and the other defendant.    In April 2004, the California First District Court of Appeal entered judgment in favor of defendants on plaintiff’s negligent design claims, and reversed and remanded for a new trial on plaintiff’s fraud-related claims. Defendants’ motion to transfer venue is pending.
March 1999   

Oregon/

Williams

   Individual Smoking and Health    $800,000 in compensatory damages, $21,500 in medical expenses and $79.5 million in punitive damages against PM USA.    The trial court reduced the punitive damages award to $32 million, and PM USA and plaintiff appealed. In June 2002, the Oregon Court of Appeals reinstated the $79.5 million punitive damages award. Following the Oregon Supreme Court’s refusal to hear PM USA’s appeal, PM USA recorded a provision of $32 million in connection with this case and petitioned the United States Supreme Court for further review. In October 2003, the United States Supreme Court set aside the Oregon appellate court’s ruling, and directed the Oregon court to reconsider the case in light of the 2003 State Farm decision by the United States Supreme Court, which limited punitive damages. In June 2004, the Oregon Court of Appeals reinstated the $79.5 million punitive damages award. On February 2, 2006, the Oregon Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision. PM USA intends to petition the United States Supreme Court for further review and pursue other avenues of relief.

 

70


Exhibit 13

 

 

In addition to the cases discussed above, in October 2003, a three-judge panel of an appellate court in Brazil reversed a lower court’s dismissal of an individual smoking and health case and ordered PMI’s Brazilian affiliate to pay plaintiff approximately $256,000 and other unspecified damages. PMI’s Brazilian affiliate appealed. In December 2004, the three-judge panel’s decision was vacated by an en banc panel of the appellate court, which upheld the trial court’s dismissal of the case. Also, in April 2005, a labor court trial judge entered judgment against PMI’s Venezuelan affiliate in favor of a former employee plaintiff in the amount of approximately $150,000 in connection with an individual claim involving smoking and health issues. PMI’s Venezuelan affiliate appealed. In August 2005, the appellate court reversed the lower court’s decision. Plaintiff has appealed to the Supreme Court.

 

With respect to certain adverse verdicts currently on appeal, excluding amounts relating to the Engle and Price cases, as of December 31, 2005, PM USA has posted various forms of security totaling approximately $329 million, the majority of which have been collateralized with cash deposits, to obtain stays of judgments pending appeals. The cash deposits are included in other assets on the consolidated balance sheets.

 

·   Engle Class Action: In July 2000, in the second phase of the Engle smoking and health class action in Florida, a jury returned a verdict assessing punitive damages totaling approximately $145 billion against various defendants, including $74 billion against PM USA. Following entry of judgment, PM USA posted a bond in the amount of $100 million and appealed.

 

In May 2001, the trial court approved a stipulation providing that execution of the punitive damages component of the Engle judgment will remain stayed against PM USA and the other participating defendants through the completion of all judicial review. As a result of the stipulation, PM USA placed $500 million into a separate interest-bearing escrow account that, regardless of the outcome of the appeal, will be paid to the court and the court will determine how to allocate or distribute it consistent with Florida Rules of Civil Procedure. In July 2001, PM USA also placed $1.2 billion into an interest-bearing escrow account, which will be returned to PM USA should it prevail in its appeal of the case. (The $1.2 billion escrow account is included in the December 31, 2005 and 2004 consolidated balance sheets as other assets. Interest income on the $1.2 billion escrow account is paid to PM USA quarterly and is being recorded as earned, in interest and other debt expense, net, in the consolidated statements of earnings.) In connection with the stipulation, PM USA recorded a $500 million pre-tax charge in its consolidated statement of earnings for the quarter ended March 31, 2001. In May 2003, the Florida Third District Court of Appeal reversed the judgment entered by the trial court and instructed the trial court to order the decertification of the class. Plaintiffs petitioned the Florida Supreme Court for further review and, in May 2004, the Florida Supreme Court agreed to review the case. Oral arguments were heard in November 2004.

 

·   Scott Class Action: In July 2003, following the first phase of the trial in the Scott class action, in which plaintiffs sought creation of a fund to pay for medical monitoring and smoking cessation programs, a Louisiana jury returned a verdict in favor of defendants, including PM USA, in connection with plaintiffs’ medical monitoring claims, but also found that plaintiffs could benefit from smoking cessation assistance. The jury also found that cigarettes as designed are not defective but that the defendants failed to disclose all they knew about smoking and diseases and marketed their products to minors. In May 2004, in the second phase of the trial, the jury awarded plaintiffs approximately $590 million, against all defendants jointly and severally, to fund a 10-year smoking cessation program. In June 2004, the court entered judgment, which awarded plaintiffs the approximately $590 million jury award plus prejudgment interest accruing from the date the suit commenced. As of December 31, 2005, the amount of prejudgment interest was approximately $390 million. PM USA’s share of the jury award and prejudgment interest has not been allocated. Defendants, including PM USA, have appealed. Pursuant to a stipulation of the parties, the trial court entered an order setting the amount of the bond at $50 million for all defendants in accordance with an article of the Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure, and a Louisiana statute (the “bond cap law”) fixing the amount of security in civil cases involving a signatory to the MSA (as defined below). Under the terms of the stipulation, plaintiffs reserve the right to contest, at a later date, the sufficiency or amount of the bond on any grounds including the applicability or constitutionality of the bond cap law. In September 2004, defendants collectively posted a bond in the amount of $50 million.

 

Smoking and Health Litigation

 

·   Overview: Plaintiffs’ allegations of liability in smoking and health 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, breach of special duty, conspiracy, concert of action, violations of deceptive trade practice laws and consumer protection statutes, and claims under the federal and state anti-racketeering statutes. In certain of these cases, plaintiffs claim that cigarette smoking exacerbated the injuries caused by their exposure to asbestos. Plaintiffs in the smoking and health actions seek various forms of relief, including compensatory and punitive damages, treble/multiple damages and other statutory damages and penalties, creation of medical monitoring and smoking cessation funds, disgorgement of profits, and injunctive and equitable relief. Defenses raised in these cases include lack of proximate cause, assumption of the risk, comparative fault and/or contributory negligence, statutes of limitations and preemption by the Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act.

 

·   Smoking and Health Class Actions : Since the dismissal in May 1996 of a purported nationwide class action brought on behalf of allegedly addicted smokers, plaintiffs have filed numerous putative smoking and health class action suits in various state and federal courts. In general, these cases purport to be brought on behalf of residents of a particular state or states (although a few cases purport to be nationwide in scope) and raise addiction claims and, in many cases, claims of physical injury as well.

 

Class certification has been denied or reversed by courts in 56 smoking and health class actions involving PM USA in Arkansas (1), the District of Columbia (2), Florida (1), Illinois (2), Iowa (1), Kansas (1), Louisiana (1), Maryland (1), Michigan (1), Minnesota (1), Nevada (29), New Jersey (6), New York (2), Ohio (1), Oklahoma (1), Pennsylvania (1), Puerto Rico (1), South Carolina (1), Texas (1) and Wisconsin (1). A class remains certified in the Scott class action discussed above.

 

A purported smoking and health class action is pending in Brazil. In that case, the trial court has issued an order finding that the action was valid under the Brazilian Consumer Defense Code.

 

The order contemplates a second stage of the case in which individuals are to file their claims. The trial court awarded the equivalent of approximately $350 per smoker per year of smoking for moral damages and has indicated that material damages will be assessed in a second phase of the case. Defendants have appealed. The trial court has granted defendants’ motion to stay its decision while the appeal is pending.

 

71


Exhibit 13

 

 

Health Care Cost Recovery Litigation

 

·   Overview: In health care cost recovery litigation, domestic and foreign governmental entities and non-governmental plaintiffs seek reimbursement of health care cost expenditures allegedly caused by tobacco products and, in some cases, of future expenditures and damages as well. Relief sought by some but not all plaintiffs includes punitive damages, multiple damages and other statutory damages and penalties, injunctions prohibiting alleged marketing and sales to minors, disclosure of research, disgorgement of profits, funding of anti-smoking programs, additional disclosure of nicotine yields, and payment of attorney and expert witness fees.

 

The claims asserted include the claim that cigarette manufacturers were “unjustly enriched” by plaintiffs’ payment of health care costs allegedly attributable to smoking, as well as claims of indemnity, negligence, strict liability, breach of express and implied warranty, violation of a voluntary undertaking or special duty, fraud, negligent misrepresentation, conspiracy, public nuisance, claims under federal and state statutes governing consumer fraud, antitrust, deceptive trade practices and false advertising, and claims under federal and state anti-racketeering statutes.

 

Defenses raised include lack of proximate cause, remoteness of injury, failure to state a valid claim, lack of benefit, adequate remedy at law, “unclean hands” (namely, that plaintiffs cannot obtain equitable relief because they participated in, and benefited from, the sale of cigarettes), lack of antitrust standing and injury, federal preemption, lack of statutory authority to bring suit, and statutes of limitations. In addition, defendants argue that they should be entitled to “set off” any alleged damages to the extent the plaintiffs benefit economically from the sale of cigarettes through the receipt of excise taxes or otherwise. Defendants also argue that these cases are improper because plaintiffs must proceed under principles of subrogation and assignment. Under traditional theories of recovery, a payor of medical costs (such as an insurer) can seek recovery of health care costs from a third party solely by “standing in the shoes” of the injured party. Defendants argue that plaintiffs should be required to bring any actions as subrogees of individual health care recipients and should be subject to all defenses available against the injured party.

 

Although there have been some decisions to the contrary, most judicial decisions have dismissed all or most health care cost recovery claims against cigarette manufacturers. Nine federal circuit courts of appeals and six state appellate courts, relying primarily on grounds that plaintiffs’ claims were too remote, have ordered or affirmed dismissals of health care cost recovery actions. The United States Supreme Court has refused to consider plaintiffs’ appeals from the cases decided by five circuit courts of appeals.

 

A number of foreign governmental entities have filed health care cost recovery actions in the United States. Such suits have been brought in the United States by 13 countries, a Canadian province, 11 Brazilian states and 11 Brazilian cities. Of these 36 cases, 34 have been dismissed, and the two cases brought by the Republic of Panama and the Brazilian State of Sao Paulo remain pending. In addition to the cases brought in the United States, health care cost recovery actions have also been brought in Israel (1), the Marshall Islands (1) (dismissed), Canada (1), France (1; dismissed, but on appeal) and Spain (1; dismissed, but on appeal), and other entities have stated that they are considering filing such actions. In September 2005, in the case in Canada, the Canadian Supreme Court ruled that legislation permitting the lawsuit is constitutional, and, as a result, the case which had previously been dismissed by the trial court will now proceed.

 

In March 1999, in the first health care cost recovery case to go to trial, an Ohio jury returned a verdict in favor of defendants on all counts. In addition, a $17.8 million verdict against defendants (including $6.8 million against PM USA) was reversed in a health care cost recovery case in New York, and all claims were dismissed with prejudice in February 2005 ( Blue Cross/Blue Shield ). The health care cost recovery case brought by the City of St. Louis, Missouri and approximately 50 Missouri hospitals, in which PM USA and ALG are defendants, remains pending without a trial date.

 

·   Settlements of Health Care Cost Recovery Litigation: In November 1998, PM USA and certain other United States tobacco product manufacturers entered into the Master Settlement Agreement (the “MSA”) with 46 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Guam, the United States Virgin Islands, American Samoa and the Northern Marianas to settle asserted and unasserted health care cost recovery and other claims. PM USA and certain other United States tobacco product manufacturers had previously settled similar claims brought by Mississippi, Florida, Texas and Minnesota (together with the MSA, the “State Settlement Agreements”). The State Settlement Agreements require that the domestic tobacco industry make substantial annual payments in the following amounts (excluding future annual payments under the agreement with the tobacco grower states discussed below), subject to adjustments for several factors, including inflation, market share and industry volume: 2006 through 2007, $8.4 billion each year; and thereafter, $9.4 billion each year. In addition, the domestic tobacco industry is required to pay settling plaintiffs’ attorneys’ fees, subject to an annual cap of $500 million. Pursuant to the provisions of the MSA, domestic tobacco product manufacturers, including PM USA, who are original signatories to the MSA (“OPMs”) are participating in a proceeding that may result in a downward adjustment to the amounts paid by the OPMs to the states and territories that are parties to the MSA for the year 2003. The availability and the precise amount of that adjustment depend on a number of factors and will likely not be determined until some time in 2006 or later. If the adjustment does become available, it may be applied as a credit against future payments due from the OPMs.

 

    The State Settlement Agreements also include provisions relating to advertising and marketing restrictions, public disclosure of certain industry documents, limitations on challenges to certain tobacco control and underage use laws, restrictions on lobbying activities and other provisions.

 

As part of the MSA, the settling defendants committed to work cooperatively with the tobacco-growing states to address concerns about the potential adverse economic impact of the MSA on tobacco growers and quota holders. To that end, in 1999, four of the major domestic tobacco product manufacturers, including PM USA, and the grower states, established the National Tobacco Grower Settlement Trust (“NTGST”), a trust fund to provide aid to tobacco growers and quota holders. The trust was to be funded by these four manufacturers over 12 years with payments, prior to application of various adjustments, scheduled to total $5.15 billion. Remaining industry payments (2006 through 2008, $500 million each year; 2009 and 2010, $295 million each year) were to be subject to adjustment for several factors, including inflation, United States cigarette volume and certain contingent events, and, in general, were to be allocated based on each manufacturer’s relative market share. Provisions of the NTGST allow for offsets to the extent that payments are made to growers and quota holders as part of a legislated end to the federal tobacco quota and price support program.

 

In October 2004, the Fair and Equitable Tobacco Reform Act of 2004 (“FETRA”) was signed into law. FETRA provides for the elimination of the federal tobacco quota and price support program through an industry-funded

 

72


Exhibit 13

 

 

buy-out of tobacco growers and quota holders. The cost of the buy-out is estimated at approximately $9.6 billion and will be paid over 10 years by manufacturers and importers of all tobacco products. The cost will be allocated based on the relative market shares of manufacturers and importers of all tobacco products. The quota buy-out payments will offset already scheduled payments to the NTGST. Manufacturers and importers of tobacco products are also obligated to cover any losses (up to $500 million) that the government may incur on the disposition of tobacco pool stock accumulated under the previous tobacco price support program. In September 2005, PM USA was billed $138 million for its share of tobacco pool stock losses and recorded the amount as an expense. Altria Group, Inc. does not currently anticipate that the quota buy-out will have a material adverse impact on its consolidated results in 2006 and beyond.

 

Following the enactment of FETRA, the trustee of the NTGST and the state entities conveying NTGST payments to tobacco growers and quota holders sued tobacco product manufacturers alleging that the offset provisions did not apply to payments due in 2004. In December 2004, a North Carolina trial court ruled that FETRA’s enactment had triggered the offset provisions and that the tobacco product manufacturers, including PM USA, were entitled to receive a refund of amounts paid to the NTGST during the first three quarters of 2004 and were not required to make the payments that would otherwise have been due during the fourth quarter of 2004. Plaintiffs appealed, and in August 2005, the North Carolina Supreme Court reversed the trial court’s ruling and remanded the case to the lower court for additional proceedings. In October 2005, the trial court ordered that the trustee could distribute the amounts that the tobacco companies had already paid to the NTGST during the first three quarters of 2004. PM USA’s portion of these payments was approximately $174 million. The trial court also ruled that the manufacturers must make the payment originally scheduled to be made to the NTGST in December 2004, with interest. PM USA’s portion of the principal was approximately $58 million, which PM USA paid in October 2005. In November 2005, PM USA paid $2 million in interest on the December 2004 payment.

 

The State Settlement Agreements have materially adversely affected the volumes of PM USA, and ALG believes that they may also materially adversely affect the results of operations, cash flows or financial position of PM USA and Altria Group, Inc. in future periods. The degree of the adverse impact will depend on, among other things, the rate of decline in United States cigarette sales in the premium and discount segments, PM USA’s share of the domestic premium and discount cigarette segments, and the effect of any resulting cost advantage of manufacturers not subject to the MSA and the other State Settlement Agreements.

 

In April 2004, a lawsuit was filed in state court in Los Angeles, California, on behalf of all California residents who purchased cigarettes in California from April 2000 to the present, alleging that the MSA enabled the defendants, including PM USA and ALG, to engage in unlawful price fixing and market sharing agreements. The complaint sought damages and also sought to enjoin defendants from continuing to operate under those provisions of the MSA that allegedly violate California law. In June 2004, plaintiffs dismissed this case and refiled a substantially similar complaint in federal court in San Francisco, California. The new complaint is brought on behalf of the same purported class but differs in that it covers purchases from June 2000 to the present, names the Attorney General of California as a defendant, and does not name ALG as a defendant. In March 2005, the trial court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the case. Plaintiffs have appealed.

 

There is a suit pending against New York state officials, in which importers of cigarettes allege that the MSA and certain New York statutes enacted in connection with the MSA violate federal antitrust law. Neither ALG nor PM USA is a defendant in this case. In September 2004, the court denied plaintiffs’ motion to preliminarily enjoin the MSA and certain related New York statutes, but the court issued a preliminary injunction against an amendment repealing the “allocable share” provision of the New York Escrow Statute. In addition, similar lawsuits have been brought in other states, including Kentucky, Arkansas, Kansas, Louisiana, Nebraska, Tennessee and Oklahoma, and a similar proceeding has been brought under the provisions of the North American Free Trade Agreement in the United Nations. Neither ALG nor PM USA is a defendant in these cases.

 

·    Federal Government’s Lawsuit: In 1999, the United States government filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia against various cigarette manufacturers, including PM USA, and others, including ALG, asserting claims under three federal statutes, the Medical Care Recovery Act (“MCRA”), the Medicare Secondary Payer (“MSP”) provisions of the Social Security Act and the civil provisions of RICO. Trial of the case ended in June 2005, and post-trial briefings were completed in September 2005. The lawsuit seeks to recover an unspecified amount of health care costs for tobacco-related illnesses allegedly caused by defendants’ fraudulent and tortious conduct and paid for by the government under various federal health care programs, including Medicare, military and veterans’ health benefits programs, and the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program. The complaint alleges that such costs total more than $20 billion annually. It also seeks what it alleges to be equitable and declaratory relief, including disgorgement of profits which arose from defendants’ allegedly tortious conduct, an injunction prohibiting certain actions by the defendants, and a declaration that the defendants are liable for the federal government’s future costs of providing health care resulting from defendants’ alleged past tortious and wrongful conduct. In September 2000, the trial court dismissed the government’s MCRA and MSP claims, but permitted discovery to proceed on the government’s claims for relief under the civil provisions of RICO.

 

The government alleged that disgorgement by defendants of approximately $280 billion is an appropriate remedy. In May 2004, the trial court issued an order denying defendants’ motion for partial summary judgment limiting the disgorgement remedy. In February 2005, a panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit held that disgorgement is not a remedy available to the government under the civil provisions of RICO and entered summary judgment in favor of defendants, with respect to the disgorgement claim. In April 2005, the Court of Appeals denied the government’s motion for rehearing. In July 2005, the government petitioned the United States Supreme Court for further review of the Court of Appeals’ ruling that disgorgement is not an available remedy, and in October 2005, the Supreme Court denied the petition.

 

In June 2005, the government filed with the trial court its proposed final judgment seeking remedies of approximately $14 billion, including $10 billion over a five-year period to fund a national smoking cessation program and $4 billion over a ten-year period to fund a public education and counter-marketing campaign. Further, the government’s proposed remedy would require defendants to pay additional monies to these programs if targeted reductions in the smoking rate of those under 21 are not achieved according to a prescribed timetable. In July 2005, the court granted the motion of six organizations to intervene in the case for the limited purpose of being heard on the issue of permissible and appropriate remedies. Those organizations argued that because the government’s proposed final judgment sought remedies more limited than what had been sought earlier in the case, the government

 

73


Exhibit 13

 

 

no longer adequately represents the interests of those organizations. In September 2005, the trial court granted six motions filed by various organizations for leave to file amicus curiae briefs. Two additional motions remain pending, including a motion for leave to file an amicus curiae brief advocating that as part of any relief granted in the case, the court direct more than $14 billion over the next ten years to various purposes specified in their brief.

 

Lights/Ultra Lights Cases

 

·   Overview: Plaintiffs in these class actions (some of which have not been certified as such), allege, among other things, that the uses of the terms “Lights” and/or “Ultra Lights” constitute deceptive and unfair trade practices, common law fraud, or RICO violations, and seek injunctive and equitable relief, including restitution and, in certain cases, punitive damages. These class actions have been brought against PM USA and, in certain instances, ALG and PMI or its subsidiaries, on behalf of individuals who purchased and consumed various brands of cigarettes, including Marlboro Lights, Marlboro Ultra Lights, Virginia Slims Lights and Superslims, Merit Lights and Cambridge Lights. Defenses raised in these cases include lack of misrepresentation, lack of causation, injury, and damages, the statute of limitations, express preemption by the Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act and implied preemption by the policies and directives of the Federal Trade Commission, non-liability under state statutory provisions exempting conduct that complies with federal regulatory directives, and the First Amendment. Twenty-four cases are pending in Arkansas (2), Delaware (1), Florida (1), Georgia (1), Illinois (2), Kansas (1), Louisiana (1), Maine (1), Massachusetts (1), Minnesota (1), Missouri (1), New Hampshire (1), New Mexico (1), New Jersey (1), New York (1), Ohio (2), Oregon (1), Tennessee (1), Washington (1), and West Virginia (2). In addition, there are two cases pending in Israel. Other entities have stated that they are considering filing such actions against ALG, PMI, and PM USA.

 

To date, trial courts in Arizona and Oregon have refused to certify a class, an appellate court in Florida has overturned class certification by a trial court and the Supreme Court of Illinois has overturned a judgment in favor of a plaintiff class in the Price case, which is discussed below. Plaintiffs in the Florida case have petitioned the Florida Supreme Court for further review, and the Supreme Court has stayed further proceedings pending its decision in the Engle case discussed above.

 

Trial courts have certified classes against PM USA in Massachusetts ( Aspinall ), Ohio ( Marrone and Philipps ), Minnesota ( Curtis ) and Missouri ( Craft ). PM USA has appealed or otherwise challenged these class certification orders. In August 2004, the Massachusetts Judicial Supreme Court affirmed the class certification order in the Aspinall case. In September 2004, an appellate court affirmed the class certification orders in the Marrone and Philipps cases in Ohio, and PM USA sought review by the Ohio Supreme Court. In February 2005, the Ohio Supreme Court accepted the cases for review to determine whether a prior determination has been made by the State of Ohio that the conduct at issue is deceptive such that plaintiffs may pursue claims. In April 2005, the Minnesota Supreme Court denied PM USA’s petition for interlocutory review of the trial court’s class certification order in the Curtis case; however, the trial court has stayed the Curtis case pending the outcome of the appeal of the dismissal of an unrelated Lights case. In September 2005, PM USA removed Curtis to federal court based on the Eighth Circuit’s decision in Watson, which upheld the removal of a Lights case to federal court based on the federal officer jurisdiction of the Federal Trade Commission . Plaintiffs’ motion to remand the case to the state court is pending. In August 2005, a Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed the class certification order in the Craft case. In September 2005, PM USA removed Craft to federal court based on the Eighth Circuit’s decision in Watson. Plaintiffs’ motion to remand the case to the state court is pending.

 

In addition to these cases, plaintiffs’ motion for certification of a nationwide class is pending in a case in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York ( Schwab ). In September 2005, the trial court hearing the Schwab case granted in part defendants’ motion for partial summary judgment dismissing plaintiffs’ claims for equitable relief, and denied a number of plaintiffs’ motions for summary judgment. In November, the trial court hearing the Schwab case ruled that the plaintiffs would be permitted to calculate damages on an aggregate basis and use “fluid recovery” theories to allocate them among class members. Also, in December 2005, in the Miner case pending in the United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas, plaintiffs moved for certification of a class composed of individuals who purchased Marlboro Lights or Cambridge Lights brands in Arkansas, California, Colorado, and Michigan. In December, defendants filed a motion to stay plaintiffs’ motion for class certification until the court rules on PM USA’s pending motion to transfer venue to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas. This motion to transfer was granted in January 2006. In addition, plaintiffs’ motions for class certification are pending in the cases in New Jersey and Georgia.

 

·   The Price Case: Trial in the Price case commenced in state court in Illinois in January 2003, and in March 2003, the judge found in favor of the plaintiff class and awarded approximately $7.1 billion in compensatory damages and $3 billion in punitive damages against PM USA. In April 2003, the judge reduced the amount of the appeal bond that PM USA must provide and ordered PM USA to place a pre-existing 7.0%, $6 billion long-term note from ALG to PM USA in an escrow account with an Illinois financial institution. (Since this note is the result of an intercompany financing arrangement, it does not appear on the consolidated balance sheets of Altria Group, Inc.) The judge’s order also required PM USA to make cash deposits with the clerk of the Madison County Circuit Court in the following amounts: beginning October 1, 2003, an amount equal to the interest earned by PM USA on the ALG note ($210 million every six months), an additional $800 million in four equal quarterly installments between September 2003 and June 2004 and the payments of principal of the note, which are due in April 2008, 2009 and 2010. Through December 31, 2005, PM USA paid $1.85 billion of the cash payments due under the judge’s order. (Cash payments into the account are included in other assets on Altria Group, Inc.’s consolidated balance sheets at December 31, 2005 and 2004.) Plaintiffs appealed the judge’s order reducing the bond. In July 2003, the Illinois Fifth District Court of Appeals ruled that the trial court had exceeded its authority in reducing the bond. In September 2003, the Illinois Supreme Court upheld the reduced bond set by the trial court and announced it would hear PM USA’s appeal on the merits without the need for intermediate appellate court review. In December 2005, the Illinois Supreme Court reversed the trial court’s judgment in favor of the plaintiffs and remanded the case to the trial court with instructions that the case be dismissed. In January 2006, plaintiffs filed a motion seeking a rehearing from the Illinois Supreme Court. If PM USA prevails on appeal, the escrowed note and all cash deposited with the court will be returned to PM USA, with accrued interest less administrative fees payable to the court.

 

74


Exhibit 13

 

 

Certain Other Tobacco-Related Litigation

 

·    Tobacco Price Cases: As of December 31, 2005, two cases were pending in Kansas and New Mexico in which plaintiffs allege that defendants, including PM USA, conspired to fix cigarette prices in violation of antitrust laws. ALG and PMI are defendants in the case in Kansas. Plaintiffs’ motions for class certification have been granted in both cases. In February 2005, the New Mexico Court of Appeals affirmed the class certification decision. PM USA’s motion for summary judgment is pending in the New Mexico case.

 

·    Wholesale Leaders Cases: In June 2003, certain wholesale distributors of cigarettes filed suit in Tennessee against PM USA seeking to enjoin the PM USA “2003 Wholesale Leaders” (“WL”) program that became available to wholesalers in June 2003. The complaint alleges that the WL program constitutes unlawful price discrimination and is an attempt to monopolize. In addition to an injunction, plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary damages, attorneys’ fees, costs and interest. The states of Tennessee and Mississippi intervened as plaintiffs in this litigation. In August 2003, the trial court issued a preliminary injunction, subject to plaintiffs’ posting a bond in the amount of $1 million, enjoining PM USA from implementing certain discount terms with respect to the sixteen wholesale distributor plaintiffs, and PM USA appealed. In September 2003, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit granted PM USA’s motion to stay the injunction pending PM USA’s expedited appeal. In January 2004, Tennessee filed a motion to dismiss its complaint, and its complaint was dismissed without prejudice in March 2004. In August 2005, the trial court granted PM USA’s motion for summary judgment, dismissed the case, and dissolved the preliminary injunction. Plaintiffs have appealed. In December 2003, a tobacco manufacturer filed a similar lawsuit against PM USA in Michigan seeking unspecified monetary damages in which it alleges that the WL program constitutes unlawful price discrimination and is an attempt to monopolize. Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed its claims alleging price discrimination, and in July 2004, the court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the attempt-to-monopolize claim. Plaintiff appealed, but dismissed its appeal in September 2005.

 

·    Consolidated Putative Punitive Damages Cases: In September 2000, a putative class action (Simon, et al. v. Philip Morris Incorporated, et al. (Simon II)) was filed in the federal district court in the Eastern District of New York that purported to consolidate punitive damages claims in ten tobacco-related actions then pending in federal district courts in New York and Pennsylvania. In September 2002, the court granted plaintiffs’ motion seeking certification of a punitive damages class of persons residing in the United States who smoke or smoked defendants’ cigarettes, and who have been diagnosed by a physician with an enumerated disease from April 1993 through the date notice of the certification of this class is disseminated. The following persons are excluded from the class: (1) those who have obtained judgments or settlements against any defendants; (2) those against whom any defendant has obtained judgment; (3) persons who are part of the Engle class; (4) persons who should have reasonably realized that they had an enumerated disease prior to April 9, 1993; and (5) those whose diagnosis or reasonable basis for knowledge predates their use of tobacco. Defendants petitioned the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit for review of the trial court’s ruling. In May 2005, the Second Circuit vacated the trial court’s class certification order and remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings. Plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration was denied, and the time for plaintiffs to petition the United States Supreme Court for further review has expired.

 

·    Cases Under the California Business and Professions Code: In June 1997 and July 1998, two suits ( Brown and Daniels ) , were filed in California state court alleging that domestic cigarette manufacturers, including PM USA and others, have violated California Business and Professions Code Sections 17200 and 17500 regarding unfair, unlawful and fraudulent business practices. Class certification was granted in both cases as to plaintiffs’ claims that class members are entitled to reimbursement of the costs of cigarettes purchased during the class periods and injunctive relief. In September 2002, the court granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment as to all claims in one of the cases, and plaintiffs appealed. In October 2004, the California Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s ruling, and also denied plaintiffs’ motion for rehearing. In February 2005, the California Supreme Court agreed to hear plaintiffs’ appeal. In September 2004, the trial court in the other case granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment as to plaintiffs’ claims attacking defendants’ cigarette advertising and promotion and denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment on plaintiffs’ claims based on allegedly false affirmative statements. Plaintiffs’ motion for rehearing was denied. In March 2005, the court granted defendants’ motion to decertify the class based on a recent change in California law. Plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration of the order that decertified the class was denied, and plaintiffs have appealed.

 

In May 2004, a lawsuit (Gurevitch) was filed in California state court on behalf of a purported class of all California residents who purchased the Merit brand of cigarettes since July 2000 to the present alleging that defendants, including PM USA, violated California’s Business and Professions Code Sections 17200 and 17500 regarding unfair, unlawful and fraudulent business practices, including false and misleading advertising. The complaint also alleges violations of California’s Consumer Legal Remedies Act. Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief, disgorgement, restitution, and attorneys’ fees. In July 2005, defendants’ motion to dismiss was granted; however, plaintiffs’ motion for leave to amend the complaint was also granted, and plaintiffs filed an amended complaint in September 2005. In October 2005, the court stayed this action pending the California Supreme Court’s rulings on two cases not involving PM USA, the resolution of which may impact the adjudication of this case.

 

·    Cigarette Contraband Cases: In May 2000 and August 2001, various departments of Colombia and the European Community and 10 Member States, filed suits in the United States against ALG and certain of its subsidiaries, including PM USA and PMI, and other cigarette manufacturers and their affiliates, alleging that defendants sold to distributors cigarettes that would be illegally imported into various jurisdictions. The claims asserted in these cases include negligence, negligent misrepresentation, fraud, unjust enrichment, violations of RICO and its state-law equivalents and conspiracy. Plaintiffs in these cases seek actual damages, treble damages and unspecified injunctive relief. In February 2002, the federal district court granted defendants’ motions to dismiss the actions. Plaintiffs in each case appealed. In January 2004, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the dismissals of the cases based on the common law Revenue Rule, which bars a foreign government from bringing civil claims in U.S. courts for the recovery of lost taxes. In April 2004, plaintiffs petitioned the United States Supreme Court for further review. In July 2004, the European Community and the 10 Member States entered into a cooperation agreement with PMI, the terms of which provide for broad cooperation between PMI and European law enforcement agencies on anti-contraband and anti-counterfeit efforts and resolve all disputes between the parties on these issues. Pursuant to this

 

75


Exhibit 13

 

 

agreement, the European Community and the 10 Member States withdrew their suit as it relates to the ALG, PM USA and PMI defendants.

 

In May 2005, the United States Supreme Court, in a summary order, granted the plaintiffs’ petitions for review, vacated the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and remanded the cases to that court for further review in light of the Supreme Court’s April 2005 decision in U.S. v. Pasquantino. In Pasquantino , a criminal case brought by the United States government, the Supreme Court upheld the convictions of the defendants in that case for violating the U.S. wire fraud statute based on a scheme to smuggle alcohol into Canada without paying Canadian taxes, while expressing no opinion as to the question of whether the Revenue Rule barred a foreign government from bringing a civil action in U.S. courts for a scheme to defraud it of taxes, as the Second Circuit had earlier held in distinguishing those civil claims from a U.S. criminal prosecution as in Pasquantino . In September 2005, the Second Circuit reinstated its original decision affirming the dismissal of the cases based on the common law Revenue Rule, concluding that the Pasquantino decision cast no doubt on the reasoning and result of the original January 2004 decision. The Second Circuit acknowledged that the claims of the European Community and 10 Member States against ALG, PM USA, and PMI had previously been dismissed. In October 2005, the plaintiffs in the two cases petitioned the United States Supreme Court for further review. In January 2006, the Supreme Court denied plaintiffs’ petition for review. It is possible that future litigation related to cigarette contraband issues may be brought.

 

·    Vending Machine Case: In February 1999, plaintiffs filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court in Tennessee as a purported nationwide class of cigarette vending machine operators, and alleged that PM USA violated the Robinson-Patman Act in connection with its promotional and merchandising programs available to retail stores and not available to cigarette vending machine operators. The initial complaint was amended to bring the total number of plaintiffs to 211 but, by stipulated orders, all claims were stayed, except those of ten plaintiffs that proceeded to pre-trial discovery. Plaintiffs requested actual damages, treble damages, injunctive relief, attorneys’ fees and costs, and other unspecified relief. In August 2001, the trial court granted PM USA’s motion for summary judgment and dismissed, with prejudice, the claims of the ten plaintiffs. In October 2001, the court certified its decision for appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit following the stipulation of all plaintiffs that the district court’s dismissal would, if affirmed, be binding on all plaintiffs. In January 2004, the Sixth Circuit reversed the lower court’s grant of summary judgment with respect to plaintiffs’ claim that PM USA violated Robinson-Patman Act provisions regarding promotional services and with respect to the discriminatory pricing claim of plaintiffs who bought cigarettes directly from PM USA. The claims of eight plaintiffs were tried in July 2005 (one plaintiff was granted a continuance and another voluntarily dismissed its claims with prejudice). The jury returned a verdict in favor of PM USA on the Robinson-Patman Act claims and awarded PM USA approximately $110,000 on counterclaims PM USA made against three plaintiffs. Following completion of the trial, the district court lifted the stay on the remaining claims and directed the magistrate judge to establish a schedule for the disposition of those claims. In October 2005, on agreement of the parties, all claims in this matter were dismissed with prejudice.

 

·    Asbestos Contribution Cases: These cases, which have been brought on behalf of former asbestos manufacturers and affiliated entities against PM USA and other cigarette manufacturers, seek, among other things, contribution or reimbursement for amounts expended in connection with the defense and payment of asbestos claims that were allegedly caused in whole or in part by cigarette smoking. Currently, one case is pending in California.

 

Certain Other Actions

 

·    Italian Tax Matters: In recent years, approximately two hundred tax assessments alleging nonpayment of taxes in Italy were served upon certain affiliates of PMI. All of these assessments were resolved in 2003 and the second quarter of 2004, with the exception of certain assessments which were duplicative of other assessments. In July 2005, the tax obligations underlying the duplicative assessments were declared fully satisfied, thereby rendering unnecessary any further litigation with respect to such assessments.

 

·    Italian Antitrust Case: During 2001, the competition authority in Italy initiated an investigation into the pricing activities of participants in that cigarette market. In March 2003, the authority issued its findings and imposed fines totaling 50 million euro on certain affiliates of PMI. PMI’s affiliates appealed to the administrative court, which rejected the appeal in July 2003. PMI believes that its affiliates have numerous grounds for appeal, and in February 2004, its affiliates appealed to the supreme administrative court. The appeal was heard on November 8, 2005. However, under Italian law, if fines are not paid within certain specified time periods, interest and eventually penalties will be applied to the fines. Accordingly, in December 2003, pending final resolution of the case, PMI’s affiliates paid 51 million euro representing the fines and any applicable interest to the date of payment. The 51 million euro will be returned to PMI’s affiliates if they prevail on appeal. Accordingly, the payment has been included in other assets on Altria Group, Inc.’s consolidated balance sheets.

 

·    PMCC Federal Income Tax Matter: The IRS is examining the consolidated tax returns for Altria Group, Inc., which includes PMCC, for years 1996 through 1999. Recently, the IRS has proposed to disallow certain transactions, and may in the future challenge and disallow several more, of PMCC’s leveraged leases based on recent Revenue Rulings and a recent IRS Notice addressing specific types of leveraged leases (lease-in/lease-out transactions, qualified technological equipment transactions, and sale-in/lease-out transactions). Altria Group, Inc. is expecting an assessment regarding these transactions for the years 1996 to 1999. PMCC believes that the position and supporting case law described in the Revenue Rulings and the IRS Notice, as well as those asserted in the proposed adjustments, are incorrectly applied to PMCC’s transactions and that its leveraged leases are factually and legally distinguishable in material respects from the IRS’s position. PMCC and ALG intend to vigorously defend against any challenges based on that position through administrative appeals and litigation, if necessary, and ALG believes that, given the strength of PMCC’s position, it should ultimately prevail. However, litigation is subject to many uncertainties and an adverse outcome could have a material adverse effect on Altria Group, Inc.’s consolidated results of operations, cash flows or financial position.

 


 

It is not possible to predict the outcome of the litigation pending against ALG and its subsidiaries. Litigation is subject to many uncertainties. As discussed above under “Recent Trial Results,” unfavorable verdicts awarding substantial damages against PM USA have been returned in 16 cases since 1999. Of the 16 cases in which verdicts were returned in favor of plaintiffs, four have reached final resolution. A verdict against defendants in a health care cost recovery case has been reversed and all claims were dismissed with prejudice, and after exhausting all appeals, PM USA paid $3.3 million (including interest

 

76


Exhibit 13

 

 

of $285,000) in an individual smoking and health case in Florida, $17 million (including interest of $6.4 million) in an individual smoking and health case in California and $328,759 (including interest of $78,259) in a flight attendant ETS case in Florida. The remaining 12 cases are in various post-trial stages. It is possible that there could be further adverse developments in these cases and that additional cases could be decided unfavorably. In the event of an adverse trial result in certain pending litigation, the defendant may not be able to obtain a required bond or obtain relief from bonding requirements in order to prevent a plaintiff from seeking to collect a judgment while an adverse verdict is being appealed. An unfavorable outcome or settlement of pending tobacco-related litigation could encourage the commencement of additional litigation. There have also been a number of adverse legislative, regulatory, political and other developments concerning cigarette smoking and the tobacco industry that have received widespread media attention. These developments may negatively affect the perception of judges and jurors with respect to the tobacco industry, possibly to the detriment of certain pending litigation, and may prompt the commencement of additional similar litigation.

 

ALG and its subsidiaries record provisions in the consolidated financial statements for pending litigation when they determine that an unfavorable outcome is probable and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. Except as discussed elsewhere in this Note 19. Contingencies : (i) management has not concluded that it is probable that a loss has been incurred in any of the pending tobacco-related litigation; (ii) management is unable to make a meaningful estimate of the amount or range of loss that could result from an unfavorable outcome of pending tobacco-related litigation; and (iii) accordingly, management has not provided any amounts in the consolidated financial statements for unfavorable outcomes, if any.

 

The present legislative and litigation environment is substantially uncertain, and it is possible that the business and volume of ALG’s subsidiaries, as well as Altria Group, Inc.’s consolidated results of operations, cash flows or financial position could be materially affected by an unfavorable outcome or settlement of certain pending litigation or by the enactment of federal or state tobacco legislation. ALG and each of its subsidiaries named as a defendant believe, and each has been so advised by counsel handling the respective cases, that it has a number of valid defenses to the litigation pending against it, as well as valid bases for appeal of adverse verdicts against it. All such cases are, and will continue to be, vigorously defended. However, ALG and its subsidiaries may enter into settlement discussions in particular cases if they believe it is in the best interests of ALG’s stockholders to do so.

 

Third-Party Guarantees

 

At December 31, 2005, Altria Group, Inc.’s third-party guarantees, which are primarily related to excise taxes, and acquisition and divestiture activities, approximated $328 million, of which $296 million have no specified expiration dates. The remainder expire through 2023, with $17 million expiring during 2006. Altria Group, Inc. is required to perform under these guarantees in the event that a third party fails to make contractual payments or achieve performance measures. Altria Group, Inc. has a liability of $41 million on its consolidated balance sheet at December 31, 2005, relating to these guarantees. In the ordinary course of business, certain subsidiaries of ALG have agreed to indemnify a limited number of third parties in the event of future litigation.

 

77


Exhibit 13

 

 

Note 20.

 

Quarterly Financial Data (Unaudited):

 

     2005 Quarters

 

(in millions, except per share data)    


   1st

   2nd

    3rd

   4th

 

Net revenues

   $ 23,618    $ 24,784     $ 24,962    $ 24,490  
    

  


 

  


Gross profit

   $ 7,791    $ 8,191     $ 8,224    $ 7,950  
    

  


 

  


Earnings from continuing operations

   $ 2,584    $ 2,912     $ 2,883    $ 2,289  

Earnings (loss) from discontinued operations

     12      (245 )               
    

  


 

  


Net earnings

   $ 2,596    $ 2,667     $ 2,883    $ 2,289  
    

  


 

  


Per share data:

                              

Basic EPS:

                              

Continuing operations

   $ 1.25    $ 1.41     $ 1.39    $ 1.10  

Discontinued operations

     0.01      (0.12 )               
    

  


 

  


Net earnings

   $ 1.26    $ 1.29     $ 1.39    $ 1.10  
    

  


 

  


Diluted EPS:

                              

Continuing operations

   $ 1.24    $ 1.40     $ 1.38    $ 1.09  

Discontinued operations

     0.01      (0.12 )               
    

  


 

  


Net earnings

   $ 1.25    $ 1.28     $ 1.38    $ 1.09  
    

  


 

  


Dividends declared

   $ 0.73    $ 0.73     $ 0.80    $ 0.80  
    

  


 

  


Market price     -high

   $ 68.50    $ 69.68     $ 74.04    $ 78.68  

       -low

   $ 60.40    $ 62.70     $ 63.60    $ 68.60  
    

  


 

  


     2004 Quarters

 

(in millions, except per share data)    


   1st

   2nd

    3rd

   4th

 

Net revenues

   $ 21,721    $ 22,894     $ 22,615    $ 22,380  
    

  


 

  


Gross profit

   $ 7,392    $ 7,761     $ 7,517    $ 7,334  
    

  


 

  


Earnings from continuing operations

   $ 2,185    $ 2,608     $ 2,637    $ 1,990  

Earnings (loss) from discontinued operations

     9      19       11      (43 )
    

  


 

  


Net earnings

   $ 2,194    $ 2,627     $ 2,648    $ 1,947  
    

  


 

  


Per share data:

                              

Basic EPS:

                              

Continuing operations

   $ 1.07    $ 1.27     $ 1.29    $ 0.97  

Discontinued operations

            0.01              (0.02 )
    

  


 

  


Net earnings

   $ 1.07    $ 1.28     $ 1.29    $ 0.95  
    

  


 

  


Diluted EPS:

                              

Continuing operations

   $ 1.06    $ 1.26     $ 1.28    $ 0.96  

Discontinued operations

     0.01      0.01       0.01      (0.02 )
    

  


 

  


Net earnings

   $ 1.07    $ 1.27     $ 1.29    $ 0.94  
    

  


 

  


Dividends declared

   $ 0.68    $ 0.68     $ 0.73    $ 0.73  
    

  


 

  


Market price     - high

   $ 58.96    $ 57.20     $ 50.30    $ 61.88  

       - low

   $ 52.49    $ 44.75     $ 44.50    $ 45.88  
    

  


 

  


 

Basic and diluted EPS are computed independently for each of the periods presented. Accordingly, the sum of the quarterly EPS amounts may not agree to the total for the year.

 

78


Exhibit 13

 

 

During 2005 and 2004, Altria Group, Inc. recorded the following pre-tax charges or (gains) in earnings from continuing operations:

 

     2005 Quarters

 

(in millions)    


   1st

    2nd

   3rd

    4th

 

Domestic tobacco headquarters relocation charges

   $ 1     $ 2    $ -     $ 1  

Domestic tobacco loss on U.S. tobacco pool

                    138          

Domestic tobacco quota buy-out

                    (115 )        

Provision for airline industry exposure

                    200          

(Gains) losses on sales of businesses

     (116 )     1              7  

Asset impairment and exit costs

     171       70      61       316  
    


 

  


 


     $ 56     $ 73    $ 284     $ 324  
    


 

  


 


     2004 Quarters

 

(in millions)    


   1st

    2nd

   3rd

    4th

 

Domestic tobacco headquarters relocation charges

   $ 10     $ 10    $ 5     $ 6  

International tobacco E.C. agreement

             250                 

Provision for airline industry exposure

                            140  

Losses (gains) on sales of businesses

                    8       (5 )

Asset impairment and exit costs

     308       160      62       188  
    


 

  


 


     $ 318     $ 420    $ 75     $ 329  
    


 

  


 


 

As discussed in Note 14. Income Taxes , Altria Group, Inc. and Kraft have each recognized income tax benefits in the consolidated statements of earnings during 2005 and 2004 as a result of various tax events, including the benefits earned under the provisions of the American Jobs Creation Act.

 

Note 21.

 

Subsequent Event:

 

In January 2006, Kraft announced plans to continue its restructuring efforts beyond those originally contemplated (see Note 3. Asset Impairment and Exit Costs ). Additional pre-tax charges are anticipated to be $2.5 billion from 2006 to 2009, of which approximately $1.6 billion are expected to require cash payments. These charges will result in the anticipated closure of up to 20 additional facilities and the elimination of approximately 8,000 additional positions. Initiatives under the expanded program include additional organizational streamlining and facility closures. The entire restructuring program is expected to ultimately result in $3.7 billion in pre-tax charges, the closure of up to 40 facilities and the elimination of approximately 14,000 positions. Approximately $2.3 billion of the $3.7 billion in pre-tax charges are expected to require cash payments.

 


 

The principal stock exchange, on which Altria Group, Inc.’s common stock (par value $0.33  1 / 3 per share) is listed, is the New York Stock Exchange. At January 31, 2006, there were approximately 106,300 holders of record of Altria Group, Inc.’s common stock.

 

79


Exhibit 13

 

 

Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

 

To the Board of Directors and Stockholders of Altria Group, Inc.:

 

We have completed integrated audits of Altria Group, Inc.’s 2005 and 2004 consolidated financial statements and of its internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2005, and an audit of its 2003 consolidated financial statements in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States). Our opinions on Altria Group, Inc.’s 2005, 2004, and 2003 consolidated financial statements and on its internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2005, based on our audits, are presented below.

 

Consolidated financial statements

 

In our opinion, the accompanying consolidated balance sheets and the related consolidated statements of earnings, stockholders’ equity, and cash flows, present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of Altria Group, Inc. and its subsidiaries at December 31, 2005 and 2004, and the results of their operations and their cash flows for each of the three years in the period ended December 31, 2005 in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America. These financial statements are the responsibility of Altria Group, Inc.’s management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial statements based on our audits. We conducted our audits of these statements in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States). Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement. An audit of financial statements includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements, assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, and evaluating the overall financial statement presentation. We believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinion.

 

Internal control over financial reporting

 

Also, in our opinion, management’s assessment, included in the Report of Management on Internal Control Over Financial Reporting dated February 7, 2006, that Altria Group, Inc. maintained effective internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2005 based on criteria established in Internal Control - Integrated Framework issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (“COSO”), is fairly stated, in all material respects, based on those criteria. Furthermore, in our opinion, Altria Group, Inc. maintained, in all material respects, effective internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2005, based on criteria established in Internal Control - Integrated Framework issued by the COSO. Altria Group, Inc.’s management is responsible for maintaining effective internal control over financial reporting and for its assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting. Our responsibility is to express opinions on management’s assessment and on the effectiveness of Altria Group, Inc.’s internal control over financial reporting based on our audit. We conducted our audit of internal control over financial reporting in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States). Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether effective internal control over financial reporting was maintained in all material respects. An audit of internal control over financial reporting includes obtaining an understanding of internal control over financial reporting, evaluating management’s assessment, testing and evaluating the design and operating effectiveness of internal control, and performing such other procedures as we consider necessary in the circumstances. We believe that our audit provides a reasonable basis for our opinions.

 

A company’s internal control over financial reporting is a process designed to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. A company’s internal control over financial reporting includes those policies and procedures that (i) pertain to the maintenance of records that, in reasonable detail, accurately and fairly reflect the transactions and dispositions of the assets of the company; (ii) provide reasonable assurance that transactions are recorded as necessary to permit preparation of financial statements in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles, and that receipts and expenditures of the company are being made only in accordance with authorizations of management and directors of the company; and (iii) provide reasonable assurance regarding prevention or timely detection of unauthorized acquisition, use, or disposition of the company’s assets that could have a material effect on the financial statements.

 

Because of its inherent limitations, internal control over financial reporting may not prevent or detect misstatements. Also, projections of any evaluation of effectiveness to future periods are subject to the risk that controls may become inadequate because of changes in conditions, or that the degree of compliance with the policies or procedures may deteriorate.

 

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

 

New York, New York

February 7, 2006

 

80


Exhibit 13

 

 

Report of Management on Internal Control Over Financial Reporting

 

Management of Altria Group, Inc. is responsible for establishing and maintaining adequate internal control over financial reporting as defined in Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Altria Group, Inc.’s internal control over financial reporting is a process designed to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America. Internal control over financial reporting includes those written policies and procedures that:

 

  pertain to the maintenance of records that, in reasonable detail, accurately and fairly reflect the transactions and dispositions of the assets of Altria Group, Inc.;

 

  provide reasonable assurance that transactions are recorded as necessary to permit preparation of financial statements in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America;

 

  provide reasonable assurance that receipts and expenditures of Altria Group, Inc. are being made only in accordance with authorization of management and directors of Altria Group, Inc.; and

 

  provide reasonable assurance regarding prevention or timely detection of unauthorized acquisition, use or disposition of assets that could have a material effect on the consolidated financial statements.

 

Internal control over financial reporting includes the controls themselves, monitoring and internal auditing practices and actions taken to correct deficiencies as identified.

 

Because of its inherent limitations, internal control over financial reporting may not prevent or detect misstatements. Also, projections of any evaluation of effectiveness to future periods are subject to the risk that controls may become inadequate because of changes in conditions, or that the degree of compliance with the policies or procedures may deteriorate.

 

Management assessed the effectiveness of Altria Group, Inc.’s internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2005. Management based this assessment on criteria for effective internal control over financial reporting described in “ Internal Control – Integrated Framework ” issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission. Management’s assessment included an evaluation of the design of Altria Group, Inc.’s internal control over financial reporting and testing of the operational effectiveness of its internal control over financial reporting. Management reviewed the results of its assessment with the Audit Committee of our Board of Directors.

 

Based on this assessment, management determined that, as of December 31, 2005, Altria Group, Inc. maintained effective internal control over financial reporting.

 

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, independent registered public accounting firm, who audited and reported on the consolidated financial statements of Altria Group, Inc. included in this report, has audited our management’s assessment of the effectiveness of Altria Group, Inc.’s internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2005 and issued an attestation report on management’s assessment of internal control over financial reporting.

 

February 7, 2006

 

81

Exhibit 21

 

ALTRIA GROUP, INC. SUBSIDIARIES

 

Certain active subsidiaries of the Company and their subsidiaries as of December 31, 2005, are listed below. The names of certain subsidiaries, which considered in the aggregate would not constitute a significant subsidiary, have been omitted.

 

Name


  

State or

Country of

Organization


152999 Canada Inc.

  

Canada

3072440 Nova Scotia Company

  

Canada

AB Kraft Foods Lietuva

  

Lithuania

Abal Hermanos S.A.

  

Uruguay

Aberdare Developments Ltd.

  

British Virgin Islands

Aberdare Two Developments Ltd.

  

British Virgin Islands

AGF Pack, Inc.

  

Japan

AGF SP, Inc.

  

Japan

Agrotab Empreendimentos Agro-Industriais, S.A.

  

Portugal

Airco IHC, Inc.

  

Delaware

Ajinomoto General Foods, Inc.

  

Japan

Alimentos Especiales, Sociedad Anonima

  

Guatemala

Altria Corporate Services International, Inc.

  

Delaware

Altria Corporate Services, Inc.

  

New York

Altria Finance (Cayman Islands) Ltd.

  

Cayman Islands

Altria Finance (Europe) AG

  

Switzerland

Altria Insurance (Ireland) Limited

  

Ireland

Altria ITSC Europe, sarl

  

Switzerland

Altria Reinsurance (Ireland) Limited

  

Ireland

Arizona Promosyon Servisleri Limited Sirketi

  

Turkey

Balance Bar Company

  

Delaware

Batavia Trading Corporation

  

British Virgin Islands

Beijing Nabisco Food Company Ltd.

  

China

Boca Foods Company

  

Delaware

C.A. Tabacalera Nacional

  

Venezuela

Cafe Grand ‘Mere S.A.S.

  

France

Callard & Bowser-Suchard, Inc.

  

Delaware

Capri Sun, Inc.

  

Delaware

Carlton Lebensmittelvertriebs GmbH

  

Germany

Carnes y Conservas Espanolas, S.A.

  

Spain

Charles Stewart & Company (Kirkcaldy) Limited

  

United Kingdom

Churny Company, Inc.

  

Delaware

CJSC Philip Morris Ukraine

  

Ukraine

Closed Joint Stock Company Kraft Foods Ukraine

  

Ukraine

Compañia Colombiana de Tabaco S.A.

  

Colombia

Compania Venezolana de Conservas C.A.

  

Venezuela

Confibel S.A.

  

Belgium

Consiber, S.A.

  

Spain

Corporativo Kraft, S. de R.L. de C.V.

  

Mexico

Cote d’Or Italia S.r.l.

  

Italy

Dart Resorts Inc.

  

Delaware

Dumas B.V.

  

Netherlands

Duvanska Industrija Nis (DIN)

  

Serbia

El Gallito Industrial, S.A.

  

Costa Rica


Exhibit 21

 

Estrella A/S

  

Denmark

Fabrica de Cigarrillos El Progreso S.A.

  

Ecuador

Family Nutrition Company S.A.E.

  

Egypt

Fattorie Osella S.p.A.

  

Italy

Finalrealm Ltd.

  

United Kingdom

Franklin Baker Company of the Philippines

  

Philippines

Freezer Queen Foods (Canada) Limited

  

Canada

FTR Holding S.A.

  

Switzerland

Fulmer Corporation Limited

  

Bahamas

Gallatas United Biscuits, S.A.

  

Spain

Gelatinas Ecuatoriana S.A.

  

Ecuador

General Foods Credit Corporation

  

Delaware

General Foods Credit Investors No. 1 Corporation

  

Delaware

General Foods Credit Investors No. 2 Corporation

  

Delaware

General Foods Credit Investors No. 3 Corporation

  

Delaware

General Foods Foreign Sales Corporation

  

U.S. Virgin Islands

Godfrey Phillips (Malaysia) Sdn. Bhd.

  

Malaysia

Grant Holdings, Inc.

  

Pennsylvania

Grant Transit Co.

  

Delaware

GWP C.V.

  

Netherlands

HAG-Coffex SNC

  

France

Hervin Holdings, Inc.

  

Delaware

HNB Investment Corp.

  

Delaware

IKM BVBA

  

Belgium

IKM Panama Holding B.V.

  

Netherlands

Industrias Del Tabaco, Alimentos Y Bebidas S.A.

  

Ecuador

International Trademarks Incorporated

  

Delaware

Intertaba S.p.A.

  

Italy

Ioniki Trading S.A.

  

Greece

ITSC Asia Pacific Pty Ltd.

  

Australia

KFI-USLLC I

  

Delaware

KFI-USLLC V

  

Delaware

KFI-USLLC VII

  

Delaware

KFI-USLLC IX

  

Delaware

KFI-USLLC XI

  

Delaware

KJS India Private Limited

  

India

Kraft Canada Inc.

  

Canada

Kraft Food Ingredients Corp.

  

Delaware

Kraft Foods (Australia) Limited

  

Australia

Kraft Foods (Beijing) Company Limited

  

China

Kraft Foods (China) Company Limited

  

China

Kraft Foods (New Zealand) Limited

  

New Zealand

Kraft Foods (Philippines), Inc.

  

Philippines

Kraft Foods (Puerto Rico), Inc.

  

Puerto Rico

Kraft Foods (Singapore) Pte Ltd.

  

Singapore

Kraft Foods (Thailand) Limited

  

Thailand

Kraft Foods (Trinidad) Unlimited

  

Trinidad

Kraft Foods Argentina S.A.

  

Argentina

Kraft Foods AS

  

Norway

Kraft Foods Asia Pacific Holding LLC

  

Delaware

Kraft Foods Aviation, LLC

  

Wisconsin

Kraft Foods Belgium S.A.

  

Belgium

Kraft Foods Brasil S.A.

  

Brazil

Kraft Foods Bulgaria AD

  

Bulgaria

 

2


Exhibit 21

 

Kraft Foods Caribbean Sales Corp.

  

Delaware

Kraft Foods Central & Eastern Europe Service BV

  

Netherlands

Kraft Foods Chile S.A.

  

Chile

Kraft Foods Colombia Ltda

  

Colombia

Kraft Foods Colombia S.A.

  

Colombia

Kraft Foods Costa Rica, S.A.

  

Costa Rica

Kraft Foods CR s.r.o.

  

Czech Republic

Kraft Foods Danmark ApS

  

Denmark

Kraft Foods Danmark Holding A/S

  

Denmark

Kraft Foods de Mexico, S. de R.L. de C.V.

  

Mexico

Kraft Foods Deutschland GmbH

  

Germany

Kraft Foods Deutschland Holding GmbH

  

Germany

Kraft Foods Dominicana, S.A.

  

Dominican Republic

Kraft Foods Ecuador S.A.

  

Ecuador

Kraft Foods Egypt LLC

  

Egypt

Kraft Foods El Salvador S.A. de C.V.

  

El Salvador

Kraft Foods Espana, S.A.

  

Spain

Kraft Foods European Services Center s.r.o.

  

Slovakia

Kraft Foods Finance Europe AG

  

Switzerland

Kraft Foods France

  

France

Kraft Foods Global, Inc.

  

Delaware

Kraft Foods Hellas S.A.

  

Greece

Kraft Foods Holding (Europa) GmbH

  

Switzerland

Kraft Foods Holdings, Inc.

  

Delaware

Kraft Foods Holland Holding B.V.

  

Netherlands

Kraft Foods Honduras, S.A.

  

Honduras

Kraft Foods Hungaria Kft.

  

Hungary

Kraft Foods Inc.

  

Virginia

Kraft Foods International (EU) Ltd.

  

United Kingdom

Kraft Foods International CEEMA

  

Austria

Kraft Foods International Services, Inc.

  

Delaware

Kraft Foods International, Inc.

  

Delaware

Kraft Foods Ireland Limited

  

Ireland

Kraft Foods Italia S.p.A.

  

Italy

Kraft Foods Jamaica Limited

  

Jamaica

Kraft Foods Latin America Holding LLC

  

Delaware

Kraft Foods Laverune SNC

  

France

Kraft Foods Limited

  

Australia

Kraft Foods Limited (Asia)

  

Hong Kong

Kraft Foods Manufacturing Corporation

  

Delaware

Kraft Foods Manufacturing Midwest, Inc.

  

Delaware

Kraft Foods Manufacturing West, Inc.

  

Delaware

Kraft Foods Maroc SA

  

Morocco

Kraft Foods Mexico Holding I B.V.

  

Netherlands

Kraft Foods Mexico Holding II B.V.

  

Netherlands

Kraft Foods Middle East & Africa Ltd.

  

United Kingdom

Kraft Foods Namur S.A.

  

Belgium

Kraft Foods Nederland B.V.

  

Netherlands

Kraft Foods Nicaragua S.A.

  

Nicaragua

Kraft Foods Norge AS

  

Norway

Kraft Foods Oesterreich GmbH

  

Austria

Kraft Foods Panama, S.A.

  

Panama

 

3


Exhibit 21

 

Kraft Foods Peru S.A.

  

Peru

Kraft Foods Polska Sp.z o.o.

  

Poland

Kraft Foods Portugal Produtos Alimentares Lda.

  

Portugal

Kraft Foods Puerto Rico Holding LLC

  

Delaware

Kraft Foods Romania SA

  

Romania

Kraft Foods Schweiz AG

  

Switzerland

Kraft Foods Schweiz Holding AG

  

Switzerland

Kraft Foods Slovakia, a.s.

  

Slovakia

Kraft Foods South Africa Pty Ltd.

  

South Africa

Kraft Foods Strasbourg SNC

  

France

Kraft Foods Sverige AB

  

Sweden

Kraft Foods Sverige Holding AB

  

Sweden

Kraft Foods Taiwan Holdings LLC

  

Delaware

Kraft Foods Taiwan Limited

  

Taiwan

Kraft Foods UK Ltd.

  

United Kingdom

Kraft Foods Uruguay S.A.

  

Uruguay

Kraft Foods Venezuela, C.A.

  

Venezuela

Kraft Foods Zagreb d.o.o.

  

Croatia

Kraft Gida Sanayi Ve Ticaret Anonim Sirketi

  

Turkey

Kraft Guangtong Food Company, Limited

  

China

Kraft Insurance (Ireland) Limited

  

Ireland

Kraft Jacobs Suchard (Australia) Pty Ltd.

  

Australia

Kraft Jacobs Suchard La Vosgienne

  

France

Kraft Japan, K.K.

  

Japan

Kraft Pizza Company

  

Delaware

Kraft Reinsurance (Ireland) Limited

  

Ireland

Kraft Tianmei Food (Tianjin) Co., Ltd.

  

China

Krema Limited

  

Ireland

KTL S. de R.L. de C.V.

  

Mexico

Lanes Biscuits Pty Ltd

  

Australia

Lanes Food (Australia) Pty Ltd

  

Australia

Le Rhône Investment Corp.

  

Delaware

Lowney Inc.

  

Canada

Management Subsidiary Holdings Inc.

  

Virginia

Massalin Particulares S.A.

  

Argentina

Mendiola y Compania, S.A.

  

Costa Rica

Michigan Investment Corp.

  

Delaware

Mirabell Salzburger Confiserie-Und Bisquit GmbH

  

Austria

Nabisco Arabia Co. Ltd.

  

Saudi Arabia

Nabisco Caribbean Export, Inc.

  

Delaware

Nabisco de Nicaragua, S.A.

  

Nicaragua

Nabisco Euro Holdings Ltd.

  

Cayman Islands

Nabisco Food (Suzhou) Co. Ltd.

  

China

Nabisco Group Ltd.

  

Delaware

Nabisco Inversiones S.R.L.

  

Argentina

Nabisco Investments, Inc.

  

Delaware

Nabisco Taiwan Corporation

  

Taiwan

Nabisco, Inc. Foreign Sales Corporation

  

U.S. Virgin Islands

NISA Holdings LLC

  

Delaware

NSA Holding LLC

  

Delaware

OAO Philip Morris Kuban

  

Russia

OMFC Service Company

  

Delaware

 

4


Exhibit 21

 

One Channel Corp.

  

Delaware

OOO Kraft Foods Rus

  

Russia

OOO Kraft Foods Sales & Marketing

  

Russia

OOO Kraft Foods

  

Russia

Orecla Realty, Inc.

  

Philippines

Oy Kraft Foods Finland Ab

  

Finland

P.T. Kraft Ultrajaya Indonesia

  

Indonesia

P.T. Sampoerna JL Sdn. Bhd.

  

Malaysia

Papastratos Cigarette Manufacturing Company S.A.

  

Greece

Papastratos International BV

  

Netherlands

Park (U.K.) Limited

  

United Kingdom

Park 1989 B.V.

  

Netherlands

Park Export Corporation

  

Virgin Islands

Park International S.A.

  

Switzerland

Phenix Leasing Corporation

  

Delaware

Phenix Management Corporation

  

Delaware

Philip Morris (Australia) Limited

  

Australia

Philip Morris (China) Management Co. Ltd.

  

China

Philip Morris (Malaysia) Sdn. Bhd.

  

Malaysia

Philip Morris (Portugal) Empresa Comercial de Tabacos, Limitada

  

Portugal

Philip Morris (Thailand) Ltd

  

Delaware

Philip Morris AB

  

Sweden

Philip Morris ApS

  

Denmark

Philip Morris Asia Limited

  

Hong Kong

Philip Morris Belgium BVBA

  

Belgium

Philip Morris Belgrade D.o.o.

  

Serbia

Philip Morris Benelux B.V.B.A.

  

Belgium

Philip Morris Brasil Industria e Comercio Ltda.

  

Brazil

Philip Morris Brasil S.A.

  

Delaware

Philip Morris Capital Corporation

  

Delaware

Philip Morris Chile Comercializadora Ltda

  

Chile

Philip Morris China Holdings Sarl

  

Switzerland

Philip Morris Colombia S.A.

  

Colombia

Philip Morris CR a.s.

  

Czech Republic

Philip Morris Duty Free Inc.

  

Delaware

Philip Morris Eesti Osauhing

  

Estonia

Philip Morris Exports Sarl

  

Switzerland

Philip Morris Finland OY

  

Finland

Philip Morris France S.A.S.

  

France

Philip Morris GmbH

  

Germany

Philip Morris Holland B.V.

  

Netherlands

Philip Morris Hungary Cigarette Trading Ltd.

  

Hungary

Philip Morris India Private Ltd.

  

India

Philip Morris Information Services Limited

  

Australia

Philip Morris International Finance Corporation

  

Delaware

Philip Morris International Holdings GmbH

  

Switzerland

Philip Morris International Inc.

  

Delaware

Philip Morris International Investments Inc.

  

Delaware

Philip Morris International Management SA

  

Switzerland

Philip Morris International Services Sarl

  

Switzerland

Philip Morris Investments Sarl

  

Switzerland

Philip Morris Italia Srl

  

Italy

Philip Morris Japan Kabushiki Kaisha

  

Japan

Philip Morris Kazakhstan LLP

  

Kazakhstan

Philip Morris Korea Inc.

  

Korea

Philip Morris Kuwait Company W.L.L.

  

Kuwait

Philip Morris Latin America & Canada Inc.

  

Delaware

 

5


Exhibit 21

 

Philip Morris Latin America Sales Corp.

  

Delaware

Philip Morris Limited

  

United Kingdom

Philip Morris Ljubljana d.o.o.

  

Slovenia

Philip Morris Luxembourg S.a.r.l.

  

Luxembourg

Philip Morris Management Services B.V.

  

Netherlands

Philip Morris Management Services SA

  

Switzerland

Philip Morris Mexico, S.A. de C.V.

  

Mexico

Philip Morris Nicaragua S.A.

  

Nicaragua

Philip Morris Overseas Investment Corp.

  

Delaware

Philip Morris Paraguay S.A.

  

Paraguay

Philip Morris Participations B.V.

  

Netherlands

Philip Morris Peru S.A.

  

Peru

Philip Morris Philippines Manufacturing Inc.

  

Philippines

Philip Morris Polska S.A.

  

Poland

Philip Morris Products Inc.

  

Virginia

Philip Morris Products S.A.

  

Switzerland

Philip Morris Research Laboratories BVBA

  

Belgium

Philip Morris Research Laboratories GmbH

  

Germany

Philip Morris Reunion s.a.r.l.

  

France

Philip Morris Romania S.R.L.

  

Romania

Philip Morris SA, Philip Morris Sabanci Pazarlama ve Satis A.S.

  

Turkey

Philip Morris Sales & Marketing Ltd.

  

Russia

Philip Morris Sdn Bhd

  

Brunei

Philip Morris Services India S.A.

  

Switzerland

Philip Morris Services S.A.

  

Switzerland

Philip Morris Singapore Pte. Ltd.

  

Singapore

Philip Morris Skopje d.o.o.e.l.

  

Macedonia

Philip Morris Slovakia s.r.o.

  

Slovakia

Philip Morris South Africa (Pty) Ltd.

  

South Africa

Philip Morris Spain, S.L., Sociedad Unipersonal

  

Spain

Philip Morris Taiwan S.A.

  

Switzerland

Philip Morris USA Inc.

  

Virginia

Philip Morris Vietnam S.A.

  

Switzerland

Philip Morris West & Central Africa SARL

  

Benin

Philip Morris West Africa SARL

  

Senegal

Philip Morris World Trade S.à.r.l.

  

Switzerland

Philip Morris Zagreb d.o.o.

  

Croatia

PHILSA Philip Morris Sabanci Sigara ve Tütüncülük Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S.

  

Turkey

PMCC Europe GmbH

  

Germany

PMCC Investors No. 1 Corporation

  

Delaware

PMCC Investors No. 2 Corporation

  

Delaware

PMCC Investors No. 3 Corporation

  

Delaware

PMCC Investors No. 4 Corporation

  

Delaware

PMCC Leasing Corporation

  

Delaware

PMI Aviation Services SA

  

Switzerland

PMI Engineering S.A.

  

Switzerland

PMI Global Services Inc.

  

Delaware

PMM-S.G.P.S., S.A.

  

Portugal

Productos Kraft, S. de R.L.de C.V.

  

Mexico

Produtos Alimenticios Pilar Ltda.

  

Brazil

Proesa, Sociedad Anonima

  

Guatemala

Proveedora Ecuatoriana S.A. (Proesa)

  

Ecuador

PT Asia Tembakau

  

Indonesia

PT Graha Sampoerna

  

Indonesia

PT Handal Logistik Nusantara

  

Indonesia

PT Hanjaya Mandala Sampoerna Tbk.

  

Indonesia

PT Integrated Business Solution Asia

  

Indonesia

 

6


Exhibit 21

 

PT Kraft Foods Indonesia Limited

  

Indonesia

PT Nabisco Foods

  

Indonesia

PT Perusahaan Dagang dan Industri Panamas

  

Indonesia

PT Philip Morris Indonesia

  

Indonesia

PT Sampoerna Air Nusantara

  

Indonesia

PT Sampoerna Printpack

  

Indonesia

PT Sumber Alfaria Trijaya

  

Indonesia

PT Taman Dayu

  

Indonesia

PT Wahana Sampoerna

  

Indonesia

Riespri S.L.

  

Spain

Sampoerna Asia Pte Ltd

  

Singapore

Sampoerna International Finance Company B.V.

  

Netherlands

Sampoerna International Pte Ltd

  

Singapore

Sampoerna Investment Corporation

  

British Virgin Islands

Sampoerna Latin America Limited

  

British Virgin Islands

Sampoerna Taiwan Corporation

  

British Virgin Islands

Sampoerna Tobacos America Latina Ltda.

  

Brazil

SB Leasing Inc.

  

Delaware

Servicios Corporativos Philip Morris, S. de R. L. de C. V.

  

Mexico

Seven Seas Foods, Inc.

  

Delaware

SIA Philip Morris Latvia

  

Latvia

Stella D’oro Biscuit Co., Inc.

  

New York

Sterling Tobacco Corporation

  

Philippines

Tabacalera Andina SA (Tanasa)

  

Ecuador

Tabacalera Centroamericana, S.A.

  

Guatemala

Tabacalera Costarricense S.A.

  

Costa Rica

Tabacalera de El Salvador S.A. de C.V.

  

El Salvador

Tabamark S.A.

  

Uruguay

Tabaqueira, S.A.

  

Portugal

Taloca AG

  

Switzerland

Taloca Cafe Ltda

  

Brazil

Taloca y Cia Ltda.

  

Colombia

Tanasec Panama Sociedad en Comandita por Acciones

  

Panama

Tassimo Corporation

  

Delaware

Technology Enterprise Computing Works, LLC

  

Virginia

The Hervin Company

  

Oregon

The United Kingdom Tobacco Company Limited

  

United Kingdom

Trademarks LLC

  

Delaware

Trimaran Leasing Investors, L.L.C.-II

  

Delaware

UAB Philip Morris Lietuva

  

Lithuania

Veryfine Products, Inc.

  

Massachusetts

Vict. Th. Engwall & Co., Inc.

  

Delaware

Vinasa Investment Corporation

  

British Virgin Islands

Votesor BV

  

Netherlands

Wolverine Investment Corp.

  

Delaware

Yili-Nabisco Biscuit & Food Company Limited

  

China

ZAO Philip Morris Izhora

  

Russia

 

7

Exhibit 23

 

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

 

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in Post-Effective Amendment No. 13 to the Registration Statement of Altria Group, Inc. on Form S-14 (File No. 2-96149) and in Altria Group, Inc.’s Registration Statements on Form S-3 (File No. 333-35143) and Forms S-8 (File Nos. 333-28631, 333-20747, 333-16127, 33-1479, 33-10218, 33-13210, 33-14561, 33-1480, 33-17870, 33-38781, 33-39162, 33-37115, 33-40110, 33-48781, 33-59109, 333-43478, 333-43484, 333-128494 and 333-71268), of our report dated February 7, 2006 relating to the consolidated financial statements, management’s assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting of Altria Group, Inc., which appears in the Annual Report to Shareholders, which is incorporated in the Annual Report on Form 10-K. We also consent to the incorporation by reference of our report dated February 7, 2006 relating to the financial statement schedule, which appears in this Form 10-K.

 

/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

 

New York, New York

March 10, 2006

Exhibit 24

 

POWER OF ATTORNEY

 

KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENT THAT the undersigned, a Director of Altria Group, Inc., a Virginia corporation (the “Company”), does hereby constitute and appoint Louis C. Camilleri, Dinyar S. Devitre and Charles R. Wall, or any one or more of them, her true and lawful attorney, for her and in her name, place and stead, to execute, by manual or facsimile signature, electronic transmission or otherwise, the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2005 and any amendments or supplements to said Annual Report and to cause the same to be filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, together with any exhibits, financial statements and schedules included or to be incorporated by reference therein, hereby granting to said attorneys full power and authority to do and perform all and every act and thing whatsoever requisite or desirable to be done in and about the premises as fully to all intents and purposes as the undersigned might or could do in person, hereby ratifying and confirming all acts and things which said attorneys may do or cause to be done by virtue of these present.

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF , the undersigned has hereunto set her hand and seal this 25 th day of February, 2006.

 

/s/ E LIZABETH E. B AILEY


Elizabeth E. Bailey


Exhibit 24

 

POWER OF ATTORNEY

 

KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENT THAT the undersigned, a Director of Altria Group, Inc., a Virginia corporation (the “Company”), does hereby constitute and appoint Louis C. Camilleri, Dinyar S. Devitre and Charles R. Wall, or any one or more of them, his true and lawful attorney, for his and in his name, place and stead, to execute, by manual or facsimile signature, electronic transmission or otherwise, the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2005 and any amendments or supplements to said Annual Report and to cause the same to be filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, together with any exhibits, financial statements and schedules included or to be incorporated by reference therein, hereby granting to said attorneys full power and authority to do and perform all and every act and thing whatsoever requisite or desirable to be done in and about the premises as fully to all intents and purposes as the undersigned might or could do in person, hereby ratifying and confirming all acts and things which said attorneys may do or cause to be done by virtue of these present.

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF , the undersigned has hereunto set his hand and seal this 25 th day of February, 2006.

 

/s/ H AROLD B ROWN


Harold Brown


Exhibit 24

 

POWER OF ATTORNEY

 

KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENT THAT the undersigned, a Director of Altria Group, Inc., a Virginia corporation (the “Company”), does hereby constitute and appoint Louis C. Camilleri, Dinyar S. Devitre and Charles R. Wall, or any one or more of them, his true and lawful attorney, for his and in his name, place and stead, to execute, by manual or facsimile signature, electronic transmission or otherwise, the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2005 and any amendments or supplements to said Annual Report and to cause the same to be filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, together with any exhibits, financial statements and schedules included or to be incorporated by reference therein, hereby granting to said attorneys full power and authority to do and perform all and every act and thing whatsoever requisite or desirable to be done in and about the premises as fully to all intents and purposes as the undersigned might or could do in person, hereby ratifying and confirming all acts and things which said attorneys may do or cause to be done by virtue of these present.

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF , the undersigned has hereunto set his hand and seal this 25 th day of February, 2006.

 

/s/ M ATHIS C ABIALLAVETTA


Mathis Cabiallavetta


Exhibit 24

 

POWER OF ATTORNEY

 

KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENT THAT the undersigned, a Director of Altria Group, Inc., a Virginia corporation (the “Company”), does hereby constitute and appoint Louis C. Camilleri, Dinyar S. Devitre and Charles R. Wall, or any one or more of them, his true and lawful attorney, for his and in his name, place and stead, to execute, by manual or facsimile signature, electronic transmission or otherwise, the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2005 and any amendments or supplements to said Annual Report and to cause the same to be filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, together with any exhibits, financial statements and schedules included or to be incorporated by reference therein, hereby granting to said attorneys full power and authority to do and perform all and every act and thing whatsoever requisite or desirable to be done in and about the premises as fully to all intents and purposes as the undersigned might or could do in person, hereby ratifying and confirming all acts and things which said attorneys may do or cause to be done by virtue of these present.

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF , the undersigned has hereunto set his hand and seal this 26 th day of February, 2006.

 

/s/ L OUIS C. C AMILLERI


Louis C. Camilleri


Exhibit 24

 

POWER OF ATTORNEY

 

KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENT THAT the undersigned, a Director of Altria Group, Inc., a Virginia corporation (the “Company”), does hereby constitute and appoint Louis C. Camilleri, Dinyar S. Devitre and Charles R. Wall, or any one or more of them, his true and lawful attorney, for his and in his name, place and stead, to execute, by manual or facsimile signature, electronic transmission or otherwise, the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2005 and any amendments or supplements to said Annual Report and to cause the same to be filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, together with any exhibits, financial statements and schedules included or to be incorporated by reference therein, hereby granting to said attorneys full power and authority to do and perform all and every act and thing whatsoever requisite or desirable to be done in and about the premises as fully to all intents and purposes as the undersigned might or could do in person, hereby ratifying and confirming all acts and things which said attorneys may do or cause to be done by virtue of these present.

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF , the undersigned has hereunto set his hand and seal this 25 th day of February, 2006.

 

/s/ J. D UDLEY F ISHBURN


J. Dudley Fishburn


Exhibit 24

 

POWER OF ATTORNEY

 

KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENT THAT the undersigned, a Director of Altria Group, Inc., a Virginia corporation (the “Company”), does hereby constitute and appoint Louis C. Camilleri, Dinyar S. Devitre and Charles R. Wall, or any one or more of them, his true and lawful attorney, for his and in his name, place and stead, to execute, by manual or facsimile signature, electronic transmission or otherwise, the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2005 and any amendments or supplements to said Annual Report and to cause the same to be filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, together with any exhibits, financial statements and schedules included or to be incorporated by reference therein, hereby granting to said attorneys full power and authority to do and perform all and every act and thing whatsoever requisite or desirable to be done in and about the premises as fully to all intents and purposes as the undersigned might or could do in person, hereby ratifying and confirming all acts and things which said attorneys may do or cause to be done by virtue of these present.

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF , the undersigned has hereunto set his hand and seal this 25 th day of February, 2006.

 

/s/ R OBERT E. R. H UNTLEY


Robert E. R. Huntley


Exhibit 24

 

POWER OF ATTORNEY

 

KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENT THAT the undersigned, a Director of Altria Group, Inc., a Virginia corporation (the “Company”), does hereby constitute and appoint Louis C. Camilleri, Dinyar S. Devitre and Charles R. Wall, or any one or more of them, his true and lawful attorney, for his and in his name, place and stead, to execute, by manual or facsimile signature, electronic transmission or otherwise, the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2005 and any amendments or supplements to said Annual Report and to cause the same to be filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, together with any exhibits, financial statements and schedules included or to be incorporated by reference therein, hereby granting to said attorneys full power and authority to do and perform all and every act and thing whatsoever requisite or desirable to be done in and about the premises as fully to all intents and purposes as the undersigned might or could do in person, hereby ratifying and confirming all acts and things which said attorneys may do or cause to be done by virtue of these present.

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF , the undersigned has hereunto set his hand and seal this 25 th day of February, 2006.

 

/s/ T HOMAS W. J ONES


Thomas W. Jones


Exhibit 24

 

POWER OF ATTORNEY

 

KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENT THAT the undersigned, a Director of Altria Group, Inc., a Virginia corporation (the “Company”), does hereby constitute and appoint Louis C. Camilleri, Dinyar S. Devitre and Charles R. Wall, or any one or more of them, his true and lawful attorney, for his and in his name, place and stead, to execute, by manual or facsimile signature, electronic transmission or otherwise, the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2005 and any amendments or supplements to said Annual Report and to cause the same to be filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, together with any exhibits, financial statements and schedules included or to be incorporated by reference therein, hereby granting to said attorneys full power and authority to do and perform all and every act and thing whatsoever requisite or desirable to be done in and about the premises as fully to all intents and purposes as the undersigned might or could do in person, hereby ratifying and confirming all acts and things which said attorneys may do or cause to be done by virtue of these present.

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF , the undersigned has hereunto set his hand and seal this 25 th day of February, 2006.

 

/s/ G EORGE M UÑOZ


George Muñoz


Exhibit 24

 

POWER OF ATTORNEY

 

KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENT THAT the undersigned, a Director of Altria Group, Inc., a Virginia corporation (the “Company”), does hereby constitute and appoint Louis C. Camilleri, Dinyar S. Devitre and Charles R. Wall, or any one or more of them, his true and lawful attorney, for his and in his name, place and stead, to execute, by manual or facsimile signature, electronic transmission or otherwise, the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2005 and any amendments or supplements to said Annual Report and to cause the same to be filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, together with any exhibits, financial statements and schedules included or to be incorporated by reference therein, hereby granting to said attorneys full power and authority to do and perform all and every act and thing whatsoever requisite or desirable to be done in and about the premises as fully to all intents and purposes as the undersigned might or could do in person, hereby ratifying and confirming all acts and things which said attorneys may do or cause to be done by virtue of these present.

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF , the undersigned has hereunto set his hand and seal this 25 th day of February, 2006.

 

/s/ L UCIO A. N OTO


Lucio A. Noto


Exhibit 24

 

POWER OF ATTORNEY

 

KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENT THAT the undersigned, a Director of Altria Group, Inc., a Virginia corporation (the “Company”), does hereby constitute and appoint Louis C. Camilleri, Dinyar S. Devitre and Charles R. Wall, or any one or more of them, his true and lawful attorney, for his and in his name, place and stead, to execute, by manual or facsimile signature, electronic transmission or otherwise, the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2005 and any amendments or supplements to said Annual Report and to cause the same to be filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, together with any exhibits, financial statements and schedules included or to be incorporated by reference therein, hereby granting to said attorneys full power and authority to do and perform all and every act and thing whatsoever requisite or desirable to be done in and about the premises as fully to all intents and purposes as the undersigned might or could do in person, hereby ratifying and confirming all acts and things which said attorneys may do or cause to be done by virtue of these present.

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF , the undersigned has hereunto set his hand and seal this 25 th day of February, 2006.

 

/s/ J OHN S. R EED


John S. Reed


Exhibit 24

 

POWER OF ATTORNEY

 

KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENT THAT the undersigned, a Director of Altria Group, Inc., a Virginia corporation (the “Company”), does hereby constitute and appoint Louis C. Camilleri, Dinyar S. Devitre and Charles R. Wall, or any one or more of them, his true and lawful attorney, for his and in his name, place and stead, to execute, by manual or facsimile signature, electronic transmission or otherwise, the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2005 and any amendments or supplements to said Annual Report and to cause the same to be filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, together with any exhibits, financial statements and schedules included or to be incorporated by reference therein, hereby granting to said attorneys full power and authority to do and perform all and every act and thing whatsoever requisite or desirable to be done in and about the premises as fully to all intents and purposes as the undersigned might or could do in person, hereby ratifying and confirming all acts and things which said attorneys may do or cause to be done by virtue of these present.

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF , the undersigned has hereunto set his hand and seal this 25 th day of February, 2006.

 

/s/ S TEPHEN M. W OLF


Stephen M. Wolf

Exhibit 31.1

 

Certifications

 

I, Louis C. Camilleri, certify that:

 

1.

I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Altria Group, Inc.;

 

2.

Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

 

3.

Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

 

4.

The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and have:

 

 

(a)

Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

 

 

(b)

Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles;

 

 

(c)

Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

 

 

(d)

Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

 

5.

The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

 

 

(a)

All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

 

 

(b)

Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

 

Date: March 10, 2006

 

 

/ S / LOUIS C. CAMILLERI

Louis C. Camilleri

Chairman and Chief Executive Officer

Exhibit 31.2

 

Certifications

 

I, Dinyar S. Devitre, certify that:

 

1.

I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Altria Group, Inc.;

 

2.

Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

 

3.

Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

 

4.

The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and have:

 

 

(a)

Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

 

 

(b)

Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles;

 

 

(c)

Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

 

 

(d)

Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

 

5.

The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

 

 

(a)

All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

 

 

(b)

Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

 

Date: March 10, 2006

 

/s/ DINYAR S. DEVITRE

Senior Vice President and

Chief Financial Officer

Exhibit 32.1

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

In connection with the Annual Report of Altria Group, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Louis C. Camilleri, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1) the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

/ S / LOUIS C. CAMILLERI

Louis C. Camilleri

Chairman and Chief

Executive Officer

March 10, 2006

 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Altria Group, Inc. and will be retained by Altria Group, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

Exhibit 32.2

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

In connection with the Annual Report of Altria Group, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Dinyar S. Devitre, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1) the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

/s/ DINYAR S. DEVITRE

Dinyar S. Devitre

Senior Vice President and

Chief Financial Officer

March 10, 2006

 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Altria Group, Inc. and will be retained by Altria Group, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

Exhibit 99.1

 

CERTAIN PENDING LITIGATION MATTERS AND RECENT DEVELOPMENTS

 

As described in Item 3. Legal Proceedings of this Annual Report on Form 10-K and Note. 19 Contingencies to Altria Group Inc.’s Consolidated Financial Statements included in Exhibit 13 hereto, there are legal proceedings covering a wide range of matters pending in various U.S. and foreign jurisdictions against ALG, its subsidiaries and affiliates, including PM USA and PMI, and their respective indemnitees. Various types of claims are raised in these proceedings, including product liability, consumer protection, antitrust, tax, contraband shipments, patent infringement, employment matters, claims for contribution and claims of competitors and distributors. Pending claims related to tobacco products generally fall within the following categories: (i) smoking and health cases alleging personal injury brought on behalf of individual plaintiffs, (ii) smoking and health cases primarily alleging personal injury or seeking court-supervised programs for ongoing medical monitoring and purporting to be brought on behalf of a class of individual plaintiffs, including cases in which the aggregated claims of a number of individual plaintiffs are to be tried in a single proceeding, (iii) health care cost recovery cases brought by governmental (both domestic and foreign) and non-governmental plaintiffs seeking reimbursement for health care expenditures allegedly caused by cigarette smoking and/or disgorgement of profits, (iv) class action suits alleging that the uses of the terms “Lights” and “Ultra Lights” constitute deceptive and unfair trade practices, common law fraud or RICO violations, and (v) other tobacco-related litigation. Other tobacco-related litigation includes suits by foreign governments seeking to recover damages resulting from the allegedly illegal importation of cigarettes into various jurisdictions, suits by former asbestos manufacturers seeking contribution or reimbursement for amounts expended in connection with the defense and payment of asbestos claims that were allegedly caused in whole or in part by cigarette smoking, and various antitrust suits.

 

The following lists certain of the pending claims included in these categories and certain other pending claims. Certain developments in these cases since November 1, 2005 are also described.

 

SMOKING AND HEALTH LITIGATION

 

The following lists the consolidated individual smoking and health cases as well as smoking and health class actions pending against PM USA and, in some cases, ALG and/or its other subsidiaries and affiliates, including PMI, as of February 15, 2006, and describes certain developments in these cases since November 1, 2005.

 

Consolidated Individual Smoking and Health Cases

 

In re: Tobacco Litigation (Individual Personal Injury cases), Circuit Court, Ohio County, West Virginia, consolidated January 11, 2000. In West Virginia, all smoking and health cases in state court alleging personal injury have been transferred to the State’s Mass Litigation Panel. The transferred cases include individual cases and putative class actions. All individual cases filed in or transferred to the court by September 13, 2000 were consolidated for pretrial proceedings and trial. Nine hundred and twenty-eight (928) individual cases are pending. The trial court’s prior Case Management Order/Trial Plan that had consolidated the individual cases for trial was vacated in June 2004. The trial court has not adopted an alternative plan for trying the individual cases. In December 2005, the West

 

1


Exhibit 99.1

 

Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals ruled that the United States Constitution does not preclude a trial in two phases in this case. Issues related to defendants’ conduct, plaintiffs’ entitlement to punitive damages and a punitive damages multiplier, if any, would be determined in the first phase. The second phase would consist of individual trials to determine liability, if any, and compensatory damages.

 

Flight Attendant Litigation

 

The settlement agreement entered into in 1997 in the case of Broin, et al. v. Philip Morris Companies Inc., et al. , which was brought by flight attendants seeking damages for personal injuries allegedly caused by environmental tobacco smoke, allows members of the Broin class to file individual lawsuits seeking compensatory damages, but prohibits them from seeking punitive damages. In October 2000, the trial court ruled that the flight attendants will not be required to prove the substantive liability elements of their claims for negligence, strict liability and breach of implied warranty in order to recover damages, if any, other than establishing that the plaintiffs’ alleged injuries were caused by their exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and, if so, the amount of compensatory damages to be awarded. Defendants’ initial appeal of this ruling was dismissed as premature. Defendants appealed the October 2000 rulings in connection with their appeal of the adverse jury verdict in the French case. In December 2004, the Florida Third District Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment awarding plaintiff in the French case $500,000, and directed the trial court to hold defendants jointly and severally liable. Defendants’ motion for rehearing was denied in April 2005. In December 2005, after exhausting all appeals, PM USA paid $328,759 (including interest of $78,259) as its share of the judgment amount and interest in French and will pay attorneys’ fees yet to be determined. As of February 15, 2006, 2,626 cases were pending in the Circuit Court of Dade County, Florida against PM USA and three other cigarette manufacturers, and to date, no cases are scheduled for trial through the end of 2006.

 

Domestic Class Actions

 

Engle, et al. v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., et al., Circuit Court, Eleventh Judicial Circuit, Dade County, Florida, filed May 5, 1994. See Item 3. Legal Proceedings , for a discussion of this case.

 

Scott, et al. v. The American Tobacco Company, et al., Civil District Court, Orleans Parish, Louisiana, filed May 24, 1996. See Item 3. Legal Proceedings , for a discussion of this case.

 

Young, et al. v. The American Tobacco Company, et al., Civil District Court, Orleans Parish, Louisiana, filed November 12, 1997.

 

Parsons, et al. v. A C & S, Inc., et al., Circuit Court, Kanawha County, West Virginia, filed February 27, 1998.

 

Cleary, et al. v. Philip Morris Incorporated, et al., Circuit Court, Cook County, Illinois, filed June 3, 1998. Defendants’ motion to dismiss a nuisance claim is pending.

 

2


Exhibit 99.1

 

Cypret, et al. v. The American Tobacco Company, et al., Circuit Court, Jackson County, Missouri, filed December 22, 1998.

 

Simms, et al. v. Philip Morris Incorporated, et al., United States District Court, District of Columbia, filed May 23, 2001 . In May 2004, plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration of the court’s 2003 ruling that denied their motion for class certification. In September 2004, plaintiffs renewed their motion for reconsideration.

 

Lowe, et al. v. Philip Morris Incorporated, et al., Circuit Court, Multnomah, Oregon , filed November 19, 2001 . In September 2003, the court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint, and plaintiffs have appealed.

 

Caronia, et al. v. Philip Morris USA, Inc., United States District Court, Eastern District of New York, filed January 13, 2006. See Item 3. Legal Proceedings, for a discussion of this case.

 

International Class Actions

 

The Smoker Health Defense Association (ADESF) v. Souza Cruz, S.A. and Philip Morris Marketing, S.A., Nineteenth Lower Civil Court of the Central Courts of the Judiciary District of Sao Paulo, Brazil, filed July 25, 1995. The trial court has issued an order finding that the action was valid under the Brazilian Consumer Defense Code. The order contemplates a second stage of the case in which individuals are to file their claims. The trial court awarded the equivalent of approximately $350 per smoker per year of smoking for moral damages and has indicated that material damages, if any, will be assessed in a second phase of the case. Defendants appealed and in March 2006, the 2nd Public Chamber of the Court of Appeals of Sao Paulo ruled that it does not have jurisdiction over the appeal because the case does not involve a matter of public law. The appeal will now be transferred to one of the private chambers of the Court of Appeals of Sao Paulo and assigned to a new judge. The trial court has granted defendants’ motion to stay its decision while the appeal is pending.

 

Polish Association for the Promotion of Health and Health Education in the Work Environment v. Philip Morris Polska S.A., District Court, Warsaw, Poland, filed February 4, 2005.

 

Sasson, et al. v. Philip Morris International Inc., et al., District Court, Tel Aviv, Israel, filed July 11, 2005 . Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification is pending.

 

HEALTH CARE COST RECOVERY LITIGATION

 

The following lists the health care cost recovery actions pending against PM USA and, in some cases, ALG and/or its other subsidiaries and affiliates as of February 15, 2006 and describes certain developments in these cases since November 1, 2005. As discussed in Item 3. Legal Proceedings, in 1998, PM USA and certain other United States tobacco product manufacturers entered into a Master Settlement Agreement (the “MSA”) settling the health care cost recovery claims of 46 states, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam, the United States Virgin Islands, American Samoa and the Northern Marianas. Settlement agreements settling similar claims had previously been entered into with the states of Mississippi, Florida, Texas and Minnesota. PM USA believes that the claims in the city/county, taxpayer and certain of the other health care cost recovery actions listed below are released in whole or in part by the MSA or that recovery in any such actions should be subject to the offset provisions of the MSA.

 

3


Exhibit 99.1

 

City of St. Louis Case

 

City of St. Louis, et al. v. American Tobacco, et al., Circuit Court, City of St. Louis, Missouri, filed November 23, 1998 . In November 2001, the court granted in part and denied in part defendants’ motion to dismiss and dismissed three of plaintiffs’ 11 claims. In June 2005, the court granted in part defendants’ motion for summary judgment limiting plaintiffs’ claims for past compensatory damages to those that accrued after November 16, 1993, five years prior to the filing of the suit. The case remains pending without a trial date.

 

Department of Justice Case

 

The United States of America v. Philip Morris Incorporated, et al., United States District Court, District of Columbia, filed September 22, 1999 . See Item 3. Legal Proceedings , for a discussion of this case.

 

International Cases

 

The Republic of Panama v. The American Tobacco Company, Inc., District Court, Orleans Parish, Louisiana, filed September 11, 1998 . In March 2005, the trial court dismissed the case without prejudice on the basis of forum non conveniens . Plaintiff filed two motions for reconsideration, and both motions were denied. In July 2005, plaintiff refiled its complaint in state court in Delaware, and in December 2005, it withdrew a motion to appeal in Louisiana.

 

Kupat Holim Clalit v. Philip Morris USA, et al., Jerusalem District Court, Israel, filed September 28, 1998 . Defendants’ motion to dismiss the case has been denied by the district court. In June 2004, defendants filed a motion with the Israel Supreme Court for leave to appeal. The appeal was heard by the Supreme Court in March 2005, and the parties are awaiting the court’s decision.

 

The Caisse Primaire d’Assurance Maladie of Saint-Nazaire v. SEITA, et al., Civil Court of Saint-Nazaire, France, filed June 1999. In September 2003, the court dismissed the case, and plaintiff has appealed.

 

In re: Tobacco/Governmental Health Care Costs Litigation (MDL No. 1279), United States District Court, District of Columbia, consolidated June 1999. In June 1999, the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transferred foreign government health care cost recovery actions brought by Nicaragua, Venezuela, and Thailand to the District of Columbia for coordinated pretrial proceedings with two such actions brought by Bolivia and Guatemala already pending in that court. Subsequently, the resulting proceeding has also included filed cases brought by the following foreign governments: Ukraine; the Brazilian States of Espirito Santo, Goias, Mato Grosso do Sul, Para, Parana, Pernambuco, Piaui, Rondonia, Sao Paulo and Tocantins; Panama; the Province of Ontario, Canada; Ecuador; the Russian Federation; Honduras; Tajikistan; Belize; the Kyrgyz Republic and

 

4


Exhibit 99.1

 

11 Brazilian cities. The cases brought by Thailand and the Kyrgyz Republic were voluntarily dismissed. The complaints filed by Guatemala, Nicaragua, Ukraine and the Province of Ontario have been dismissed, and the dismissals are now final. The district court remanded the cases brought by Belize, Ecuador, Honduras, the Russian Federation, Tajikistan, Venezuela, nine Brazilian states and the 11 Brazilian cities to Florida state courts and remanded the cases brought by one Brazilian state and Panama to Louisiana state court. Subsequent to remand, the Ecuador case was voluntarily dismissed. In November 2001, the Venezuela and Espirito Santo actions were dismissed, and Venezuela appealed. In September 2002, a Florida intermediate appellate court affirmed the ruling dismissing the case brought by Venezuela. In June 2003, the Florida Supreme Court denied Venezuela’s petition for further review. In August 2003, the trial court granted defendants’ motions to dismiss the cases brought by Tajikistan and one Brazilian state, and plaintiffs in the other 21 cases then pending in Florida voluntarily dismissed their claims without prejudice. In December 2004, the parties in the case brought by Bolivia filed a stipulation of dismissal without prejudice. In February 2005, the Texas Supreme Court refused to hear the appeal of the dismissal of the case brought by the State of Rio de Janeiro (Brazil). In March 2005, the trial court in Louisiana dismissed the cases brought by Panama and one Brazilian state without prejudice on the basis of forum non conveniens . Plaintiffs filed two motions for reconsideration, which have been denied. The Brazilian state has also appealed, and has also indicated its intention to voluntarily dismiss the appeal once courts in New Orleans reopen. Both plaintiffs have also refiled their complaints in state court in Delaware.

 

The State of Sao Paulo of the Federal Republic of Brazil v. Philip Morris Companies Inc., et al., Civil District Court, Orleans Parish, Louisiana, filed February 9, 2000 . In March 2005, the trial court dismissed the case without prejudice on the basis of forum non conveniens . Plaintiff filed two motions for reconsideration, and both motions were denied. Plaintiff refiled its complaint in state court in Delaware in July 2005, and in December 2005, it withdrew a motion to appeal in Louisiana.

 

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 . In June 2003, the trial court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the case, and plaintiff appealed. In May 2004, the appellate court reversed the trial court’s decision. Defendants appealed. In September 2005, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that the legislation permitting the lawsuit is constitutional, and as a result, the case will proceed before the trial court.

 

Junta de Andalucia, et al. v. Philip Morris Spain, et al., Court of First Instance, Madrid, Spain, filed February 21, 2002 . In May 2004, the court dismissed the case, and plaintiffs appealed. In February 2006, the High Court of Appeal of Madrid dismissed plaintiffs’ appeal.

 

The Republic of Panama v. The American Tobacco Company, Inc., Superior Court, New Castle County, Delaware, filed July 21, 2005 .

 

The State of Sao Paulo of the Federative Republic of Brazil v. The American Tobacco Company, et al., Superior Court, New Castle County, Delaware, filed July 21, 2005 .

 

5


Exhibit 99.1

 

Medicare Secondary Payer Act Cases

 

Glover, et al. v. Philip Morris Incorporated, et al., United States District Court, Middle District, Florida, filed May 26, 2004. In July 2005, the court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss with prejudice all of plaintiffs’ claims, and plaintiffs have appealed.

 

United Seniors Association v. Philip Morris, et al., District of Massachusetts, filed August 4, 2005. Defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff’s claims is pending.

 

LIGHTS/ULTRA LIGHTS CASES

 

The following lists the Lights/Ultra Lights cases pending against ALG and/or its various subsidiaries and others as of February 15, 2006, and describes certain developments since November 1, 2005.

 

Aspinall, et al. v. Philip Morris Companies Inc. and Philip Morris Incorporated, Superior Court, Suffolk County, Massachusetts, filed November 24, 1998 . In October 2001, the court granted plaintiffs’ motion for class certification, and defendants appealed. In May 2003, the Single Justice sitting on behalf of the Massachusetts Court of Appeals decertified the class. In August 2004, Massachusetts’ highest court affirmed the trial court’s ruling and reinstated the class certification order.

 

McClure, et al. v. Philip Morris Companies Inc. and Philip Morris Incorporated, Circuit Court, Davidson County, Tennessee, filed January 19, 1999 . Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification on behalf of all purchasers of Marlboro Lights in Tennessee is pending.

 

Marrone, et al. v. Philip Morris Companies Inc. and Philip Morris Incorporated, Court of Common Pleas, Medina County, Ohio, filed November 8, 1999 . In September 2003, plaintiffs’ motion for class certification was granted as to plaintiffs’ claims that defendants violated Ohio’s Consumer Sales Practices Act pursuant to which plaintiffs allege that class members are entitled to reimbursement of the costs of cigarettes purchased during the class periods. Class membership is limited to the residents of six Ohio counties. Defendants have appealed the class certification order. In September 2004, the Ninth District Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s class certification order. PM USA sought appeal of the order. In February 2005, the Ohio Supreme Court accepted the case for review to determine whether a prior determination has been made by the State of Ohio that the conduct at issue is deceptive such that plaintiffs may pursue private claims.

 

6


Exhibit 99.1

 

Price, et al. v. Philip Morris Incorporated, Circuit Court, Madison County, Illinois, filed February 10, 2000 . See Item 3. Legal Proceedings , for a discussion of this case.

 

Craft, et al. v. Philip Morris Companies Inc., et al., United States District Court, Eastern District, Missouri, filed February 15, 2000 . In December 2003, the Circuit Court, City of St. Louis granted plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. In September 2004, the court granted in part and denied in part PM USA’s motion for reconsideration. In August 2005, a Missouri State Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s class certification order. In September 2005, the case was removed to federal court. Plaintiffs’ motion to remand the case to the state court is pending.

 

Hines, et al. v. Philip Morris Companies Inc., et al., Circuit Court, Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County, Florida, filed February 23, 2001 . In February 2002, the court granted plaintiffs’ motion for class certification, and defendants appealed. In December 2003, a Florida District Court of Appeal decertified the class. In March 2004, plaintiffs filed a motion for rehearing, en banc review or certification to the Florida Supreme Court. In December 2004, the Florida Supreme Court stayed further proceedings pending its decision in the Engle case discussed in Item 3. Legal Proceedings .

 

Philipps, et al. v. Philip Morris Incorporated, et al., Court of the Common Pleas, Medina County, Ohio, filed April 30, 2001. In September 2003, plaintiffs’ motion for class certification was granted as to plaintiffs’ claims that defendants violated Ohio’s Consumer Sales Practices Act pursuant to which plaintiffs allege that class members are entitled to reimbursement of the costs of cigarettes purchased during the class periods. Class membership is limited to the residents of six Ohio counties. Defendants have appealed the class certification order. In September 2004, the Ninth District Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s class certification order. PM USA sought appeal of the order. In February 2005, the Ohio Supreme Court accepted the case for review to determine whether a prior determination has been made by the State of Ohio that the conduct at issue is deceptive such that plaintiffs may pursue private claims.

 

Moore, et al. v. Philip Morris Incorporated, et al., Circuit Court, Marshall County, West Virginia, filed September 17, 2001.

 

Curtis, et al. v. Philip Morris Companies Inc., et al., United States District Court, Minnesota, filed November 28, 2001 . In January 2004, the Fourth Judicial District Court, Hennepin County denied plaintiffs’ motion for class certification and defendants’ motions for summary judgment. In November 2004, the trial court granted plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration and ordered the certification of a class. In April 2005, the Minnesota Supreme Court denied defendants’ petition for interlocutory review. In September 2005, the case was removed to federal court. In February 2006, the federal court denied plaintiff’s motion to remand the case to state court. The case will now proceed in federal court.

 

Tremblay, et al. v. Philip Morris Incorporated, Superior Court, Rockingham County, New Hampshire, filed March 29, 2002. The case has been consolidated with another Lights/Ultra Lights case and has been informally stayed .

 

7


Exhibit 99.1

 

Pearson v. Philip Morris Incorporated, et al., Circuit Court, Multnomah County, Oregon, filed November 20, 2002 . In October 2005, plaintiffs’ motion for class certification on behalf of all purchasers of Marlboro Lights in Oregon was denied. In addition, PM USA’s motion for summary judgment with respect to reliance “from the time that plaintiff learned of the alleged fraud and continued to purchase Lights” cigarettes was granted. In November 2005, plaintiffs filed a motion with the trial court to have its order denying class certification certified for interlocutory appellate review.

 

Sullivan v. Philip Morris USA, Inc., et al., United States District Court, Western District, Louisiana, filed March 28, 2003. In August 2005, the court granted in part the motion for summary judgment filed by PM USA by dismissing plaintiff’s claims asserted under the Louisiana Unfair Trade and Consumer Protection Act. In December 2005, the court denied PM USA’s motion for reconsideration of the portion of the ruling denying its motion for summary judgment but certified the issue for interlocutory appeal. In January 2006, PM USA filed a petition to appeal with the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

 

Virden v. Altria Group, Inc., et al., Circuit Court, Hancock County, West Virginia, filed March 28, 2003.

 

Stern, et al. v. Philip Morris USA, Inc. et al., Superior Court, Middlesex County, New Jersey, filed April 4, 2003. Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification and PM USA’s motion to strike plaintiffs’ class certification motion are pending.

 

Piscetta, et al. v. Philip Morris Incorporated, State Court, Fulton County, Georgia, filed April 10, 2003. Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification and defendants’ motion for summary judgment are pending.

 

 

Arnold, et al. v. Philip Morris USA Inc., Circuit Court, Madison County, Illinois, filed May 5, 2003.

 

Watson, et al. v. Altria Group, Inc., et al., United States District Court, Eastern District, Arkansas, filed May 29, 2003. In January 2006, the court stayed all activity in the case pending the resolution of plaintiffs’ petition for certiorari filed with the United States Supreme Court.

 

Holmes, et al. v. Philip Morris USA Inc., et al., Superior Court, New Castle, Delaware, filed August 18, 2003.

 

El-Roy, et al. v. Philip Morris Incorporated, et al., District Court of Tel-Aviv/Jaffa, Israel, filed January 18, 2004. Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification is pending.

 

Davies v. Philip Morris USA Inc., et al., Superior Court, King County, Washington, filed April 8, 2004 . Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification is pending.

 

Schwab, et al. v. Philip Morris USA Inc., et al., United States District Court, Eastern District, New York, filed May 11, 2004 . Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification on behalf

 

8


Exhibit 99.1

 

of all purchasers of Lights cigarettes in the United States is pending. In September 2005, the trial court granted in part defendants’ motion for partial summary judgment dismissing plaintiffs’ claims for equitable relief, and denied a number of plaintiffs’ motions for summary judgment. In November 2005, the trial court ruled that the plaintiffs would be permitted to calculate damages on an aggregate basis and use “fluid recovery” theories to allocate them among the class members.

 

Navon, et al. v. Philip Morris Products USA, et al., District Court of Tel-Aviv/Jaffa, Israel, filed December 5, 2004. This case has been stayed pending the resolution of class certification issues in El-Roy v. Philip Morris Incorporated, et al.

 

Miner, et al. v. Altria Group, Inc., et al., United States District Court, Western District, Arkansas, filed December 29, 2004. In December 2005, plaintiffs moved for certification of a class composed of individuals who purchased Marlboro Lights or Cambridge Lights brands in Arizona, California, Colorado and Michigan. In December 2005, defendants filed a motion to stay plaintiffs’ motion for class certification pending PM USA’s motion to transfer the case to the United States Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas. This motion to transfer was granted in January 2006. PM USA’s motion for summary judgment is pending. Plaintiffs have moved to voluntarily dismiss the case.

 

Flanagan, et al. v. Altria Group, Inc., et al., United States District Court, Eastern District, Michigan, filed April 29, 2005. In October 2005, the court granted in part the motion for summary judgment filed by PM USA by dismissing plaintiffs’ claims asserted under the Michigan Unfair Trade and Consumer Protection Act. In November 2005, plaintiffs stipulated to the dismissal of the remaining claims.

 

Mulford, et al. v. Altria Group, Inc., et al., United States District Court, New Mexico, filed June 9, 2005 . Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification is pending.

 

Benedict, et al. v. Altria Group, Inc., et al., United States District Court, Kansas, filed June 27, 2005 . Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification is pending.

 

Good, et al. v. Altria Group, Inc., et al., United States District Court, Maine, filed August 15, 2005. Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification is pending. PM USA’s motion for summary judgment is pending.

 

CERTAIN OTHER TOBACCO-RELATED ACTIONS

 

The following lists certain other tobacco-related litigation pending against ALG and/or its various subsidiaries and others as of February 15, 2006, and describes certain developments since November 1, 2005.

 

Tobacco Price Cases

 

Smith, et al. v. Philip Morris Companies Inc., et al., District Court, Seward County, Kansas, filed February 9, 2000. In November 2001, the court granted plaintiffs’ motion for class certification.

 

9


Exhibit 99.1

 

Romero, et al. v. Philip Morris Companies Inc., et al., First Judicial District Court, Rio Arriba County, New Mexico, filed April 10, 2000 . Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification was granted in April 2003. In February 2005, the New Mexico Court of Appeals affirmed the class certification decision. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is pending.

 

Consolidated Putative Punitive Damages Cases

 

Simon, et al. v. Philip Morris Incorporated, et al. (Simon II), United States District Court, Eastern District, New York, filed September 6, 2000. See Item 3. Legal Proceedings, for a discussion of this case.

 

Cases Under the California Business and Professions Code

 

Brown, et al. v. The American Tobacco Company, Inc., et al., Superior Court, San Diego County, California, filed June 10, 1997. In April 2001, the court granted in part plaintiffs’ motion for class certification and certified a class comprised of residents of California who smoked at least one of defendants’ cigarettes between June 1993 and April 2001 and who were exposed to defendants’ marketing and advertising activities in California. Certification was granted as to plaintiffs’ claims that defendants violated California Business and Professions Code Sections 17200 and 17500 pursuant to which plaintiffs allege that class members are entitled to reimbursement of the costs of cigarettes purchased during the class period and injunctive relief barring activities allegedly in violation of the Business and Professions Code. In September 2004, the trial court granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment as to plaintiffs’ claims attacking defendants’ cigarette advertising and promotion and denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment on plaintiffs’ claims based on allegedly false affirmative statements. Plaintiffs’ motion for rehearing was denied. In November 2004, defendants filed a motion to decertify the class based on a recent change in California law. In March 2005, the court granted defendants’ motion. In April 2005, the court denied plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration of the order that decertified the class. In May 2005, plaintiffs appealed.

 

Daniels, et al. v. Philip Morris Companies Inc., et al., Superior Court, San Diego County, California, filed April 2, 1998. In November 2000, the court granted the plaintiffs’ motion for class certification on behalf of minor California residents who smoked at least one cigarette between April 1994 and December 1999. Certification was granted as to plaintiffs’ claims that defendants violated California Business and Professions Code Section 17200 pursuant to which plaintiffs allege that class members are entitled to reimbursements of the costs of cigarettes purchased during the class period and injunctive relief barring activities allegedly in violation of the Business and Professions Code. In September 2002, the court granted defendants’ motions for summary judgment as to all claims in the case, and plaintiffs appealed. In October 2004, the California Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s ruling. In February 2005, the California Supreme Court agreed to hear plaintiffs’ appeal.

 

10


Exhibit 99.1

 

Gurevitch, et al. v. Philip Morris USA Inc., et al., Superior Court, Los Angeles County, California, filed May 20, 2004 . See Item 3. Legal Proceedings , for a discussion of this case.

 

Reynolds v. Philip Morris USA Inc., United States District Court, Southern District, California, filed September 20, 2005 . In September 2005, a California consumer sued PM USA in a purported class action, alleging that PM USA violated certain California consumer protection laws in connection with alleged “expiration dates” for Marlboro Miles, which could be used to acquire merchandise. PM USA’s motion to dismiss the case is pending.

 

Asbestos Contribution Case

 

Fibreboard Corporation, et al. v. The American Tobacco Company, Inc., et al., Superior Court, Alameda County, California, filed December 11, 1997.

 

Cigarette Contraband Cases

 

Department of Amazonas, et al. v. Philip Morris Companies Inc., et al., United States District Court, Eastern District, New York, filed May 19, 2000 . See Item 3. Legal Proceedings , for a discussion of this case.

 

Vending Machine Case

 

Lewis d/b/a B&H Vendors v. Philip Morris Incorporated, United States District Court, Middle District, Tennessee, filed February 3, 1999. See Item 3. Legal Proceedings, for a discussion of this case.

 

MSA-Related Cases

 

In the following case in which PM USA is a defendant, plaintiffs have challenged the validity of legislation implementing the MSA .

 

Sanders, et al. v. Philip Morris USA, Inc., et al., United States District Court, Northern District, California, filed June 9, 2004. Defendants’ motion to dismiss the case was granted in March 2005. Plaintiffs have appealed.

 

National Tobacco Growers Settlement Trust Litigation

 

State v. Philip Morris, et al., Superior Court, Wake County, North Carolina, filed December 10, 2004. See Item 3. Legal Proceedings, for a discussion of this case.

 

11


Exhibit 99.1

 

Public Ban Cost Recovery Action

 

Municipality of Haifa v. Dubek Ltd., et al. District Court of Haifa, Israel, filed March 28, 2004. This case is pending against Menache H. Eliachar Ltd., which is an indemnitee of a subsidiary of PMI. The Municipality of Haifa seeks to recover the costs it incurred enforcing a public ban on smoking. The case was dismissed by the District Court of Haifa, and the plaintiff sought leave to appeal to the Israeli Supreme Court.

 

CERTAIN OTHER ACTIONS

 

The following lists certain other actions pending against subsidiaries of ALG and others as of February 15, 2006.

 

In October 2002, Mr. Mustapha Gaouar and five family members (collectively, the “Gaouars”) filed suit in the Commercial Court of Casablanca against Kraft Foods Maroc (“KFM”), a subsidiary of Kraft, and Mr. Omar Berrada claiming damages of approximately $31 million arising from a non-compete undertaking signed by Mr. Gaouar allegedly under duress. The non-compete clause was contained in an agreement concluded in 1986 between Mr. Gaouar and Mr. Berrada acting for himself and for his group of companies, including Les Cafes Ennasr (renamed Kraft Foods Maroc), which was acquired by Kraft Foods International, Inc. from Mr. Berrada in 2001. In June 2003, the court issued a preliminary judgment against KFM and Mr. Berrada holding that the Gaouars are entitled to damages for being deprived of the possibility of engaging in coffee roasting from 1986 due to such non-compete undertaking. At that time, the court appointed two experts to assess the amount of damages to be awarded. In December 2003, these experts delivered a report concluding that they could see no evidence of loss suffered by the Gaouars. The Gaouars asked the court that this report be set aside and new court experts be appointed. In April 2004, the court delivered a judgment upholding the defenses of KFM and rejecting the claims of the Gaouars. The Gaouars appealed this judgment to the Commercial Court of Appeal of Casablanca. In July 2005, the Commercial Court of Appeal of Casablanca issued a judgment in favor of KFM confirming the decision rendered by the Commercial Court. In November 2005, the Gaours filed their further appeal to the Moroccan Supreme Court. KFM believes that in the event that it is ultimately found liable for damages to plaintiffs in this case, it may have claims against Mr. Berrada for recovery of all or a portion of the amount of any damages awarded to plaintiffs.

 

12

Exhibit 99.2

 

TRIAL SCHEDULE FOR CERTAIN CASES

 

Below is a schedule setting forth by month the number of individual smoking and health cases against PM USA that are currently scheduled for trial through the end of 2006.

 

2006

January (1)

September (1)

November (2)

December (1)