| Contingencies: | Contingencies: Tobacco-Related Litigation Legal proceedings covering a wide range of matters are pending or threatened against us, and/or our subsidiaries, and/or our indemnitees in various jurisdictions. Our indemnitees include distributors, licensees, and others that have been named as parties in certain cases and that we have agreed to defend, as well as to pay costs and some or all of judgments, if any, that may be entered against them. Pursuant to the terms of the Distribution Agreement between Altria Group, Inc. (“Altria”) and PMI, PMI will indemnify Altria and Philip Morris USA Inc. (“PM USA”), a U.S. tobacco subsidiary of Altria, for tobacco product claims based in substantial part on products manufactured by PMI or contract manufactured for PMI by PM USA, and PM USA will indemnify PMI for tobacco product claims based in substantial part on products manufactured by PM USA, excluding tobacco products contract manufactured for PMI. It is possible that there could be adverse developments in pending cases against us and our subsidiaries. An unfavorable outcome or settlement of pending tobacco-related litigation could encourage the commencement of additional litigation. Damages claimed in some of the tobacco-related litigation are significant and, in certain cases in Brazil, Canada and Nigeria, range into the billions of U.S. dollars. The variability in pleadings in multiple jurisdictions, together with the actual experience of management in litigating claims, demonstrate that the monetary relief that may be specified in a lawsuit bears little relevance to the ultimate outcome. Much of the tobacco-related litigation is in its early stages, and litigation is subject to uncertainty. However, as discussed below, we have to date been largely successful in defending tobacco-related litigation. We and our subsidiaries record provisions in the consolidated financial statements for pending litigation when we determine that an unfavorable outcome is probable and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. At the present time, except as stated otherwise in this Note 10. Contingencies , while it is reasonably possible that an unfavorable outcome in a case may occur, after assessing the information available to it (i) management has not concluded that it is probable that a loss has been incurred in any of the pending tobacco-related cases; (ii) management is unable to estimate the possible loss or range of loss for any of the pending tobacco-related cases; and (iii) accordingly, no estimated loss has been accrued in the consolidated financial statements for unfavorable outcomes in these cases, if any. Legal defense costs are expensed as incurred. It is possible that our consolidated results of operations, cash flows or financial position could be materially affected in a particular fiscal quarter or fiscal year by an unfavorable outcome or settlement of certain pending litigation. Nevertheless, although litigation is subject to uncertainty, we and each of our subsidiaries named as a defendant believe, and each has been so advised by counsel handling the respective cases, that we have valid defenses to the litigation pending against us, as well as valid bases for appeal of adverse verdicts. All such cases are, and will continue to be, vigorously defended. However, we and our subsidiaries may enter into settlement discussions in particular cases if we believe it is in our best interests to do so. CCAA Proceedings and Stay of Tobacco-Related Cases Pending in Canada As a result of the Court of Appeal of Quebec’s decision in both the Létourneau and Blais cases described below, our subsidiary, Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc. (“RBH”), and the other defendants, JTI Macdonald Corp., and Imperial Tobacco Canada Limited, sought protection in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (“CCAA”) on March 22, March 8, and March 12, 2019, respectively. CCAA is a Canadian federal law that permits a Canadian business to restructure its affairs while carrying on its business in the ordinary course. The initial CCAA order made by the Ontario Superior Court on March 22, 2019 authorizes RBH to pay all expenses incurred in carrying on its business in the ordinary course after the CCAA filing, including obligations to employees, vendors, and suppliers. RBH's financial results have been deconsolidated from our consolidated financial statements since March 22, 2019. As part of the CCAA proceedings, there is currently a comprehensive stay up to and including March 29, 2024 of all tobacco-related litigation pending in Canada against RBH and the other defendants, including PMI and our indemnitees (PM USA and Altria), namely, the smoking and health class actions filed in various Canadian provinces and health care cost recovery actions. These proceedings are presented below under the caption “ Stayed Litigation — Canada .” Ernst & Young Inc. has been appointed as monitor of RBH in the CCAA proceedings. In accordance with the CCAA process, as the parties work towards a plan of arrangement or compromise in a confidential mediation, it is anticipated that the court will set additional hearings and further extend the stay of proceedings. On April 17, 2019, the Ontario Superior Court ruled that RBH and the other defendants will not be allowed to file an application to the Supreme Court of Canada for leave to appeal the Court of Appeal’s decision in the Létourneau and the Blais cases so long as the comprehensive stay of all tobacco-related litigation in Canada remains in effect and that the time period to file the application would be extended by the stay period. While RBH believes that the findings of liability and damages in both Létourneau and the Blais cases were incorrect, the CCAA proceedings will provide a forum for RBH to seek resolution through a plan of arrangement or compromise of all tobacco-related litigation pending in Canada. It is not possible to predict the resolution of the underlying legal proceedings or the length of the CCAA process. Stayed Litigation — Canada Smoking and Health Litigation — Canada In the first class action pending in Canada, Conseil Québécois Sur Le Tabac Et La Santé and Jean-Yves Blais v. Imperial Tobacco Canada Ltd., Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc. and JTI-Macdonald Corp., Quebec Superior Court, Canada , filed in November 1998, RBH and other Canadian cigarette manufacturers (Imperial Tobacco Canada Ltd. and JTI-Macdonald Corp.) are defendants. The plaintiffs, an anti-smoking organization and an individual smoker, sought compensatory and punitive damages for each member of the class who suffers allegedly from certain smoking-related diseases. The class was certified in 2005. The trial court issued its judgment on May 27, 2015. The trial court found RBH and two other Canadian manufacturers liable and found that the class members’ compensatory damages totaled approximately CAD 15.5 billion (approximately $11.3 billion), including pre-judgment interest. The trial court awarded compensatory damages on a joint and several liability basis, allocating 20% to our subsidiary (approximately CAD 3.1 billion (approximately $2.26 billion), including pre-judgment interest). In addition, the trial court awarded CAD 90,000 (approximately $66,000) in punitive damages, allocating CAD 30,000 (approximately $22,000) to RBH. The trial court estimated the disease class at 99,957 members. RBH appealed to the Court of Appeal of Quebec. In October 2015, the Court of Appeal ordered RBH to furnish security totaling CAD 226 million (approximately $165 million) to cover both the Létourneau and Blais cases, which RBH has paid in installments through March 2017. The Court of Appeal ordered Imperial Tobacco Canada Ltd. to furnish security totaling CAD 758 million (approximately $553 million) in installments through June 2017. JTI Macdonald Corp. was not required to furnish security in accordance with plaintiffs’ motion. The Court of Appeal ordered that the security is payable upon a final judgment of the Court of Appeal affirming the trial court’s judgment or upon further order of the Court of Appeal. On March 1, 2019, the Court of Appeal issued a decision largely affirming the trial court’s findings of liability and the compensatory and punitive damages award while reducing the total amount of compensatory damages to approximately CAD 13.5 billion (approximately $9.8 billion), including interest due to the trial court’s error in the calculation of interest. The compensatory damages award is on a joint and several basis with an allocation of 20% to RBH (approximately CAD 2.7 billion (approximately $2.0 billion), including pre-judgment interest). The Court of Appeal upheld the trial court’s findings that defendants violated the Civil Code of Quebec, the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms, and the Quebec Consumer Protection Act by failing to warn adequately of the dangers of smoking and by conspiring to prevent consumers from learning of the dangers of smoking. The Court of Appeal further held that the plaintiffs either need not prove, or had adequately proven, that these faults were a cause of the class members’ injuries. In accordance with the judgment, defendants were required to deposit their respective portions of the damages awarded in both the Létourneau case described below and the Blais case, approximately CAD 1.1 billion (approximately $802 million), into trust accounts within 60 days. RBH’s share of the deposit was approximately CAD 257 million (approximately $194 million). PMI recorded a pre-tax charge of $194 million in its consolidated results, representing $142 million net of tax, as tobacco litigation-related expense, in the first quarter of 2019. The charge reflects PMI’s assessment of the portion of the judgment that represents probable and estimable loss prior to the deconsolidation of RBH and corresponds to the trust account deposit required by the judgment. In the second class action pending in Canada, Cecilia Létourneau v. Imperial Tobacco Ltd., Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc. and JTI-Macdonald Corp., Quebec Superior Court, Canada, filed in September 1998, RBH and other Canadian cigarette manufacturers (Imperial Tobacco Canada Ltd. and JTI-Macdonald Corp.) are defendants. The plaintiff, an individual smoker, sought compensatory and punitive damages for each member of the class who is deemed addicted to smoking. The class was certified in 2005. The trial court issued its judgment on May 27, 2015. The trial court found RBH and two other Canadian manufacturers liable and awarded a total of CAD 131 million (approximately $96 million) in punitive damages, allocating CAD 46 million (approximately $34 million) to RBH. The trial court estimated the size of the addiction class at 918,000 members but declined to award compensatory damages to the addiction class because the evidence did not establish the claims with sufficient accuracy. The trial court found that a claims process to allocate the awarded punitive damages to individual class members would be too expensive and difficult to administer. On March 1, 2019, the Court of Appeal issued a decision largely affirming the trial court’s findings of liability and the total amount of punitive damages awarded allocating CAD 57 million (approximately $42 million), including interest to RBH. See the Blais description above for further detail concerning the security order pertaining to both Létourneau and Blais cases and the impact of the decision on PMI’s financial statements. RBH and PMI believe the findings of liability and damages in both Létourneau and the Blais cases were incorrect and in contravention of applicable law on several grounds, including the following: (i) defendants had no obligation to warn class members who knew, or should have known, of the risks of smoking; (ii) defendants cannot be liable to class members who would have smoked regardless of what warnings were given; and (iii) defendants cannot be liable to all class members given the individual differences among class members. In the third class action pending in Canada, Kunta v. Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers' Council, et al., The Queen's Bench, Winnipeg, Canada , filed June 12, 2009, we, RBH, and our indemnitees (PM USA and Altria), and other members of the industry are defendants. The plaintiff, an individual smoker, alleges her own addiction to tobacco products and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (“COPD”), severe asthma, and mild reversible lung disease resulting from the use of tobacco products. She is seeking compensatory and punitive damages on behalf of a proposed class comprised of all smokers, their estates, dependents and family members, as well as restitution of profits, and reimbursement of government health care costs allegedly caused by tobacco products. In the fourth class action pending in Canada, Adams v. Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers' Council, et al., The Queen's Bench, Saskatchewan, Canada , filed July 10, 2009, we, RBH, and our indemnitees (PM USA and Altria), and other members of the industry are defendants. The plaintiff, an individual smoker, alleges her own addiction to tobacco products and COPD resulting from the use of tobacco products. She is seeking compensatory and punitive damages on behalf of a proposed class comprised of all smokers who have smoked a minimum of 25,000 cigarettes and have allegedly suffered, or suffer, from COPD, emphysema, heart disease, or cancer, as well as restitution of profits. In the fifth class action pending in Canada, Semple v. Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers' Council, et al., The Supreme Court (trial court), Nova Scotia, Canada , filed June 18, 2009, we, RBH, and our indemnitees (PM USA and Altria), and other members of the industry are defendants. The plaintiff, an individual smoker, alleges his own addiction to tobacco products and COPD resulting from the use of tobacco products. He is seeking compensatory and punitive damages on behalf of a proposed class comprised of all smokers, their estates, dependents and family members, as well as restitution of profits, and reimbursement of government health care costs allegedly caused by tobacco products. In the sixth class action pending in Canada, Dorion v. Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers' Council, et al., The Queen's Bench, Alberta, Canada, filed June 15, 2009, we, RBH, and our indemnitees (PM USA and Altria), and other members of the industry are defendants. The plaintiff, an individual smoker, alleges her own addiction to tobacco products and chronic bronchitis and severe sinus infections resulting from the use of tobacco products. She is seeking compensatory and punitive damages on behalf of a proposed class comprised of all smokers, their estates, dependents and family members, restitution of profits, and reimbursement of government health care costs allegedly caused by tobacco products. To date, we, our subsidiaries, and our indemnitees have not been properly served with the complaint. In the seventh class action pending in Canada, McDermid v. Imperial Tobacco Canada Limited, et al., Supreme Court, British Columbia, Canada , filed June 25, 2010, we, RBH, and our indemnitees (PM USA and Altria), and other members of the industry are defendants. The plaintiff, an individual smoker, alleges his own addiction to tobacco products and heart disease resulting from the use of tobacco products. He is seeking compensatory and punitive damages on behalf of a proposed class comprised of all smokers who were alive on June 12, 2007, and who suffered from heart disease allegedly caused by smoking, their estates, dependents and family members, plus disgorgement of revenues earned by the defendants from January 1, 1954, to the date the claim was filed. In the eighth class action pending in Canada, Bourassa v. Imperial Tobacco Canada Limited, et al., Supreme Court, British Columbia, Canada , filed June 25, 2010, we, RBH, and our indemnitees (PM USA and Altria), and other members of the industry are defendants. The plaintiff, the heir to a deceased smoker, alleges that the decedent was addicted to tobacco products and suffered from emphysema resulting from the use of tobacco products. She is seeking compensatory and punitive damages on behalf of a proposed class comprised of all smokers who were alive on June 12, 2007, and who suffered from chronic respiratory diseases allegedly caused by smoking, their estates, dependents and family members, plus disgorgement of revenues earned by the defendants from January 1, 1954, to the date the claim was filed. In December 2014, plaintiff filed an amended statement of claim. In the ninth class action pending in Canada, Suzanne Jacklin v. Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers' Council, et al., Ontario Superior Court of Justice, filed June 20, 2012, we, RBH, and our indemnitees (PM USA and Altria), and other members of the industry are defendants. The plaintiff, an individual smoker, alleges her own addiction to tobacco products and COPD resulting from the use of tobacco products. She is seeking compensatory and punitive damages on behalf of a proposed class comprised of all smokers who have smoked a minimum of 25,000 cigarettes and have allegedly suffered, or suffer, from COPD, heart disease, or cancer, as well as restitution of profits. Health Care Cost Recovery Litigation — Canada In the first health care cost recovery case pending in Canada, Her Majesty the Queen in Right of British Columbia v. Imperial Tobacco Limited, et al., Supreme Court, British Columbia, Vancouver Registry, Canada, filed January 24, 2001, we, RBH, our indemnitee (PM USA), and other members of the industry are defendants. The plaintiff, the government of the province of British Columbia, brought a claim based upon legislation enacted by the province authorizing the government to file a direct action against cigarette manufacturers to recover the health care costs it has incurred, and will incur, resulting from a “tobacco related wrong.” In the second health care cost recovery case filed in Canada, Her Majesty the Queen in Right of New Brunswick v. Rothmans Inc., et al., Court of Queen's Bench of New Brunswick, Trial Court, New Brunswick, Fredericton, Canada, filed March 13, 2008, we, RBH, our indemnitees (PM USA and Altria), and other members of the industry are defendants. The claim was filed by the government of the province of New Brunswick based on legislation enacted in the province. This legislation is similar to the law introduced in British Columbia that authorizes the government to file a direct action against cigarette manufacturers to recover the health care costs it has incurred, and will incur, as a result of a “tobacco related wrong.” In the third health care cost recovery case filed in Canada, Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario v. Rothmans Inc., et al., Ontario Superior Court of Justice, Toronto, Canada , filed September 29, 2009, we, RBH, our indemnitees (PM USA and Altria), and other members of the industry are defendants. The claim was filed by the government of the province of Ontario based on legislation enacted in the province. This legislation is similar to the laws introduced in British Columbia and New Brunswick that authorize the government to file a direct action against cigarette manufacturers to recover the health care costs it has incurred, and will incur, as a result of a “tobacco related wrong.” In the fourth health care cost recovery case filed in Canada, Attorney General of Newfoundland and Labrador v. Rothmans Inc., et al., Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador, St. Johns, Canada , filed February 8, 2011, we, RBH, our indemnitees (PM USA and Altria), and other members of the industry are defendants. The claim was filed by the government of the province of Newfoundland and Labrador based on legislation enacted in the province that is similar to the laws introduced in British Columbia, New Brunswick and Ontario. The legislation authorizes the government to file a direct action against cigarette manufacturers to recover the health care costs it has incurred, and will incur, as a result of a “tobacco related wrong.” In the fifth health care cost recovery case filed in Canada, Attorney General of Quebec v. Imperial Tobacco Limited, et al., Superior Court of Quebec, Canada , filed June 8, 2012, we, RBH, our indemnitee (PM USA), and other members of the industry are defendants. The claim was filed by the government of the province of Quebec based on legislation enacted in the province that is similar to the laws enacted in several other Canadian provinces. The legislation authorizes the government to file a direct action against cigarette manufacturers to recover the health care costs it has incurred, and will incur, as a result of a “tobacco related wrong.” In the sixth health care cost recovery case filed in Canada, Her Majesty in Right of Alberta v. Altria Group, Inc., et al., Supreme Court of Queen's Bench Alberta, Canada , filed June 8, 2012, we, RBH, our indemnitees (PM USA and Altria), and other members of the industry are defendants. The claim was filed by the government of the province of Alberta based on legislation enacted in the province that is similar to the laws enacted in several other Canadian provinces. The legislation authorizes the government to file a direct action against cigarette manufacturers to recover the health care costs it has incurred, and will incur, as a result of a “tobacco related wrong.” In the seventh health care cost recovery case filed in Canada, Her Majesty the Queen in Right of the Province of Manitoba v. Rothmans, Benson & Hedges, Inc., et al., The Queen's Bench, Winnipeg Judicial Centre, Canada , filed May 31, 2012, we, RBH, our indemnitees (PM USA and Altria), and other members of the industry are defendants. The claim was filed by the government of the province of Manitoba based on legislation enacted in the province that is similar to the laws enacted in several other Canadian provinces. The legislation authorizes the government to file a direct action against cigarette manufacturers to recover the health care costs it has incurred, and will incur, as a result of a “tobacco related wrong.” In the eighth health care cost recovery case filed in Canada, The Government of Saskatchewan v. Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc., et al., Queen's Bench, Judicial Centre of Saskatchewan, Canada , filed June 8, 2012, we, RBH, our indemnitees (PM USA and Altria), and other members of the industry are defendants. The claim was filed by the government of the province of Saskatchewan based on legislation enacted in the province that is similar to the laws enacted in several other Canadian provinces. The legislation authorizes the government to file a direct action against cigarette manufacturers to recover the health care costs it has incurred, and will incur, as a result of a “tobacco related wrong.” In the ninth health care cost recovery case filed in Canada, Her Majesty the Queen in Right of the Province of Prince Edward Island v. Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc., et al., Supreme Court of Prince Edward Island (General Section), Canada , filed September 10, 2012, we, RBH, our indemnitees (PM USA and Altria), and other members of the industry are defendants. The claim was filed by the government of the province of Prince Edward Island based on legislation enacted in the province that is similar to the laws enacted in several other Canadian provinces. The legislation authorizes the government to file a direct action against cigarette manufacturers to recover the health care costs it has incurred, and will incur, as a result of a “tobacco related wrong.” In the tenth health care cost recovery case filed in Canada, Her Majesty the Queen in Right of the Province of Nova Scotia v. Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc., et al., Supreme Court of Nova Scotia, Canada , filed January 2, 2015, we, RBH, our indemnitees (PM USA and Altria), and other members of the industry are defendants. The claim was filed by the government of the province of Nova Scotia based on legislation enacted in the province that is similar to the laws enacted in several other Canadian provinces. The legislation authorizes the government to file a direct action against cigarette manufacturers to recover the health care costs it has incurred, and will incur, as a result of a “tobacco related wrong.” __________ The table below lists the number of tobacco-related cases pertaining to combustible products pending against us and/or our subsidiaries or indemnitees as of September 30, 2023, and September 30, 2022: Type of Case 1 Number of Cases Pending as of September 30, 2023 Number of Cases Pending as of September 30, 2022 Individual Smoking and Health Cases 48 38 Smoking and Health Class Actions 9 9 Health Care Cost Recovery Actions 17 17 Label-Related Class Actions — — Individual Label-Related Cases 5 6 Public Civil Actions 1 1 ______ ¹ Includes cases pending in Canada. Since 1995, when the first tobacco-related litigation was filed against a PMI entity, 538 Smoking and Health, Label-Related, Health Care Cost Recovery, and Public Civil Actions in which we and/or one of our subsidiaries and/or indemnitees were a defendant have been terminated in our favor. Fifteen cases have had decisions in favor of plaintiffs. Ten of these cases have subsequently reached final resolution in our favor and five remain on appeal, or are subject to an appeal, or our subsidiary may file an appeal. The table below lists the verdict and significant post-trial developments in the five pending cases where a verdict was returned in favor of the plaintiff: Date Location of Type of Verdict Post-Trial May 27, 2015 Canada/Conseil Québécois Sur Le Tabac Et La Santé and Jean-Yves Blais Class Action On May 27, 2015, the Superior Court of the District of Montreal, Province of Quebec ruled in favor of the Blais class on liability and found the class members’ compensatory damages totaled approximately CAD 15.5 billion (approximately $11.3 billion), including pre-judgment interest. The trial court awarded compensatory damages on a joint and several liability basis, allocating 20% to our subsidiary (approximately CAD 3.1 billion including pre-judgment interest (approximately $2.26 billion)). The trial court awarded CAD 90,000 (approximately $66,000) in punitive damages, allocating CAD 30,000 (approximately $22,000) to our subsidiary. The trial court ordered defendants to pay CAD 1 billion (approximately $729 million) of the compensatory damage award, CAD 200 million (approximately $146 million) of which is our subsidiary’s portion, into a trust within 60 days. In June 2015, RBH commenced the appellate process with the Court of Appeal of Quebec. On March 1, 2019, the Court of Appeal issued a decision largely affirming the trial court's decision. (See “ Stayed Litigation — Canada ” for further detail.) Date Location of Type of Verdict Post-Trial May 27, 2015 Canada/Cecilia Létourneau Class Action On May 27, 2015, the Superior Court of the District of Montreal, Province of Quebec ruled in favor of the Létourneau class on liability and awarded a total of CAD 131 million (approximately $96 million) in punitive damages, allocating CAD 46 million (approximately $34 million) to RBH. The trial court ordered defendants to pay the full punitive damage award into a trust within 60 days. The court did not order the payment of compensatory damages. In June 2015, RBH commenced the appellate process with the Court of Appeal of Quebec. On March 1, 2019, the Court of Appeal issued a decision largely affirming the trial court's decision. (See “ Stayed Litigation — Canada ” for further detail.) Date Location of Type of Verdict Post-Trial August 5, 2016 Argentina/Hugo Lespada Individual Action On August 5, 2016, the Civil Court No. 14 - Mar del Plata, issued a verdict in favor of plaintiff, an individual smoker, and awarded him ARS 110,000 (approximately $314), plus interest, in compensatory and moral damages. The trial court found that our subsidiary failed to warn plaintiff of the risk of becoming addicted to cigarettes. On August 23, 2016, our subsidiary filed its notice of appeal. On October 31, 2017, the Civil and Commercial Court of Appeals of Mar del Plata ruled that plaintiff's claim was barred by the statute of limitations and it reversed the trial court's decision. On May 17, 2021, plaintiff filed a federal extraordinary appeal. On November 1, 2021, the Supreme Court of the Province of Buenos Aires dismissed plaintiff's federal extraordinary appeal. On November 10, 2021, plaintiff filed a direct appeal before the Federal Supreme Court. Date Location of Type of Verdict Post-Trial June 17, 2021 Argentina/Claudia Milano Individual Action On June 17, 2021, the Civil Court No. 9 - Mar del Plata, issued a verdict in favor of plaintiff, an individual smoker, and awarded her smoking cessation treatments, ARS 150,000 (approximately $429), in compensatory and moral damages, and ARS 4,000,000 (approximately $11,435) in punitive damages, plus interest and costs. The trial court found that our subsidiary failed to warn plaintiff of the risk of becoming addicted to cigarettes. On July 2, 2021, our subsidiary filed its notice of appeal. In addition, plaintiff filed an appeal challenging the dismissal of the claim for psychological damages. As required by local law, our subsidiary deposited the damages awarded, plus interest and costs, in total ARS 6,114,428 (approximately $17,479), into a court escrow account. Our subsidiary challenged the amount determined by the court. The Civil and Commercial Court of Appeals of Mar del Plata granted our subsidiary's challenge to the escrow amount determined by the trial court. As a result, on December 16, 2021, ARS 893,428 (approximately $2,554) was returned to our subsidiary. If our subsidiary ultimately prevails, the remaining deposited amounts will be returned to our subsidiary. On May 31, 2022, the Civil and Commercial Court of Appeals of Mar del Plata ruled that the statute of limitations barred plaintiff's claim and reversed the trial court's decision. On June 15, 2022, plaintiff filed an extraordinary appeal. Date Location of Type of Verdict Post-Trial June 23, 2023 Turkey/ Senem Yilmazel Individual Action On June 23, 2023, the Ankara Consumer Court published its decision in favor of plaintiff, the daughter of an individual smoker, against our subsidiary and a BAT subsidiary, awarding her TRY 10,000 (approximately $357) in damages. The trial court found that the plaintiff’s father died as a result of lung cancer and COPD caused by his cigarette consumption. On September 8, 2023, our subsidiary filed its appeal. On September 25, 2023, the plaintiff filed an appeal challenging the damages amount determined by the court. Pending claims related to tobacco products generally fall within the following categories: Smoking and Health Litigation: These cases primarily allege personal injury and are brought by individual plaintiffs or on behalf of a class or purported class of individual plaintiffs. Plaintiffs' allegations of liability in these cases are based on various theories of recovery, including negligence, gross negligence, strict liability, fraud, misrepresentation, design defect, failure to warn, breach of express and implied warranties, violations of deceptive trade practice laws and consumer protection statutes. Plaintiffs in these cases seek various forms of relief, including compensatory and other damages, and injunctive and equitable relief. Defenses raised in these cases include licit activity, failure to state a claim, lack of defect, lack of proximate cause, assumption of the risk, contributory negligence, and statute of limitations. As of September 30, 2023, there were a number of smoking and health cases pending against us, our subsidiaries or indemnitees, as follows: • 48 cases brought by individual plaintiffs in Argentina (32), Australia (1), Canada (2), Chile (10), the Philippines (1), Turkey (1) and Scotland (1), compared with 38 such cases on September 30, 2022; and • 9 cases brought on behalf of classes of individual plaintiffs, compared with 9 such cases on September 30, 2022. The class actions pending in Canada are described above under the caption “ Smoking and Health Litigation — Canada. ” Health Care Cost Recovery Litigation: These cases, brought by governmental and non-governmental plaintiffs, seek reimbursement of health care cost expenditures allegedly caused by tobacco products. Plaintiffs' allegations of liability in these cases are based on various theories of recovery including unjust enrichment, negligence, negligent design, strict liability, breach of expre |
