Altria (MO) 10-Q2022 Q1 Quarterly report

On October 1, 2021, UST sold its subsidiary, International Wine & Spirits, which included Ste. Michelle Wine Estates Ltd. (“Ste. Michelle”).

At March 31, 2022, we had investments in the following equity securities: Anheuser-Busch InBev SA/NV (“ABI”), Cronos Group Inc. (“Cronos”) and JUUL Labs, Inc. (“JUUL”). We account for our investments in ABI and Cronos under the equity method of accounting using a one-quarter lag. We account for our equity investment in JUUL under the fair value option.

These statements should be read in conjunction with our audited consolidated financial statements and related notes, which appear in our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2021.

We calculate substantially all cash discounts, offered to customers for prompt payment, as a flat rate per unit based on agreed-upon payment terms. Prior to the first quarter of 2021 for USSTC and the third quarter of 2021 for PM USA, cash discounts were calculated as a percentage of the list price based on historical experience and agreed-upon payment terms. We record receivables net of the cash discounts on our condensed consolidated balance sheets.

We record payments received in advance of product shipment as deferred revenue. These payments are included in other accrued liabilities on our condensed consolidated balance sheets until control of such products is obtained by the customer. Deferred revenue was $247 million and $287 million at March 31, 2022 and December 31, 2021, respectively. When cash is received in advance of product shipment, we satisfy our performance obligations within three days of receiving payment. At March 31, 2022 and December 31, 2021, there were no differences between amounts recorded as deferred revenue and amounts subsequently recognized as revenue.

Receivables were $46 million and $47 million at March 31, 2022 and December 31, 2021, respectively. At March 31, 2022 and December 31, 2021, there were no expected differences between amounts recorded and subsequently received, and we did not record an allowance for doubtful accounts against these receivables.

We record an allowance for returned goods, which is included in other accrued liabilities on our condensed consolidated balance sheets. While all of our tobacco operating companies sell tobacco products with dates relative to freshness as printed on product packaging, it is USSTC’s policy to accept authorized sales returns from its customers for products that have passed such dates due to the limited shelf life of USSTC’s MST and snus products. We record estimated sales returns, which are based principally on historical volume and return rates, as a reduction to revenues. Actual sales returns will differ from estimated sales returns to the extent actual results differ from estimated assumptions. We reflect differences between actual and estimated sales returns in the period in which the actual amounts become known. These differences, if any, have not had a material impact on our condensed consolidated financial statements. All returned goods are destroyed upon return and not included in inventory. Consequently, we do not record an asset for their right to recover goods from customers upon return.

Sales incentives include variable payments related to goods sold. We include estimates of variable consideration as a reduction to revenues upon shipment of goods to customers. The sales incentives that require significant estimates and judgments are as follows:

These estimates primarily include estimated wholesale to retail sales volume and historical acceptance rates. Actual payments will differ from estimated payments to the extent actual results differ from estimated assumptions. Differences between actual and estimated payments are reflected in the period such information becomes available. These differences, if any, have not had a material impact on our condensed consolidated financial statements.

At March 31, 2022, we had an approximate 10% ownership interest in ABI, consisting of 185 million restricted shares of ABI (the “Restricted Shares”) and 12 million ordinary shares of ABI. The Restricted Shares:

The Restricted Shares were subject to a five-year lock-up period that ended October 10, 2021. As of this filing, we have not elected to convert our Restricted Shares into ordinary shares of ABI.

We account for our investment in ABI under the equity method of accounting because we have the ability to exercise significant influence over the operating and financial policies of ABI, including having active representation on ABI’s board of directors and certain ABI board committees. Through this representation, we participate in ABI’s policy making processes.

We report our share of ABI’s results using a one-quarter lag because ABI’s results are not available in time for us to record them in the concurrent period.

The fair value of our equity investment in ABI is based on (i) unadjusted quoted prices in active markets for ABI’s ordinary shares and was classified in Level 1 of the fair value hierarchy and (ii) observable inputs other than Level 1 prices, such as quoted prices for similar assets for the Restricted Shares, and was classified in Level 2 of the fair value hierarchy. We can convert the Restricted Shares to ordinary shares at our discretion. Therefore, the fair value of each Restricted Share is based on the value of an ordinary share.

The fair value of our equity investment in ABI at March 31, 2022 and December 31, 2021 was $11.9 billion for both periods, which exceeded its carrying value of $11.3 billion and $11.1 billion by approximately 5% and 7%, respectively.

In December 2018, we made an investment in JUUL for $12.8 billion and received a 35% economic interest in JUUL through non-voting shares, which were convertible at our election into voting shares (“Share Conversion”), and a security convertible into additional non-voting or voting shares, as applicable, upon settlement or exercise of certain JUUL convertible securities (the “JUUL Transaction”). At March 31, 2022, we had a 35% ownership interest in JUUL, consisting of 42 million voting shares.

We received a broad preemptive right to purchase JUUL shares, exercisable each quarter upon dilution, to maintain our ownership percentage and we are subject to a standstill restriction under which we may not acquire additional JUUL shares above our 35% interest. Furthermore, we agreed not to sell or transfer any of our JUUL shares until December 20, 2024.

As part of the JUUL Transaction, we entered into a services agreement with JUUL pursuant to which we agreed to provide JUUL with certain commercial services, as requested by JUUL, for an initial term of six years. In January 2020, we amended certain JUUL Transaction agreements and entered into a new cooperation agreement. In conjunction with these amendments, the parties agreed that we would discontinue all services as of March 31, 2020 except regulatory affairs support for JUUL’s pursuit of its pre-market tobacco applications and/or its modified risk tobacco products applications.

We also agreed to non-competition obligations generally requiring that we participate in the e-vapor business only through JUUL. However, we have the option to be released from our non-compete obligation (i) in the event JUUL is prohibited by federal law from selling e-vapor products in the United States for a continuous period of at least 12 months (subject to tolling of this period in certain circumstances), (ii) if the carrying value of our investment in JUUL is not more than 10% of its initial carrying value of $12.8 billion or (iii) if we are no longer providing JUUL services as of December 20, 2024.

Additionally, with respect to certain litigation in which we and JUUL are both defendants against third-party plaintiffs, we agreed not pursue any claims against JUUL for indemnification or reimbursement except for any non-contractual claims for contribution or indemnity where a judgment has been entered against us and JUUL.

If we choose to exercise our governance rights, JUUL has agreed to:

Following Share Conversion in the fourth quarter of 2020, we elected to account for our equity method investment in JUUL under the fair value option. Under this option, our condensed consolidated statements of earnings include any cash dividends received from our investment in JUUL and any changes in the estimated fair value of our investment, which is calculated quarterly. We believe the fair value option provides quarterly transparency to investors as to the fair market value of our investment in JUUL, given the changes and volatility in the e-vapor category since our initial investment, as well as the lack of publicly available information regarding JUUL’s business or a market-derived valuation.

We use an income approach to estimate the fair value of our investment in JUUL. The income approach reflects the discounting of future cash flows for the United States and international markets at a rate of return that incorporates the risk-free rate for the use of those funds, the expected rate of inflation and the risks associated with realizing future cash flows. Future cash flow projections are based on a range of scenarios that consider various potential regulatory and market outcomes.

At March 31, 2022, we had a 41.7% ownership interest in Cronos, consisting of 156.6 million shares, which we account for under the equity method of accounting. We report our share of Cronos’s results using a one-quarter lag because Cronos’s results are not available in time for us to record them in the concurrent period.

The fair value of our equity method investment in Cronos is based on unadjusted quoted prices in active markets for Cronos’s common shares and is classified in Level 1 of the fair value hierarchy. At March 31, 2022, the fair value of our equity method investment in Cronos exceeded its carrying value by $55 million or approximately 10%. At December 31, 2021, the fair value and carrying value of our equity method investment in Cronos were $617 million. At April 25, 2022, the fair value of our equity method investment in Cronos was below its carrying value by $74 million or approximately 13%.

As part of our Investment in Cronos, at March 31, 2022, we also owned:

If exercised in full, the exercise prices for the warrant and Fixed-price Preemptive Rights are approximately CAD $1.6 billion and CAD $0.2 billion, respectively (approximately U.S. dollar $1.2 billion and $0.1 billion, respectively, based on the CAD to U.S. dollar exchange rate on April 25, 2022). At March 31, 2022, upon full exercise of the Fixed-price Preemptive Rights, to the extent such rights become available, and the warrant, we would own approximately 52% of the outstanding common shares of Cronos.

The Fixed-price Preemptive Rights and Cronos warrant are derivative financial instruments, which are required to be recorded at fair value. The fair values of the Fixed-price Preemptive Rights and Cronos warrant are estimated using Black-Scholes option-pricing models, adjusted for observable inputs (which are classified in Level 1 of the fair value hierarchy), including share price, and unobservable inputs, including probability factors and weighting of expected life, volatility levels and risk-free interest rates (which are classified in Level 3 of the fair value hierarchy). We elect to record the gross assets and liabilities of derivative financial instruments executed with the same counterparty on our condensed consolidated balance sheets in investments in equity securities.

We enter into derivative financial instruments to mitigate the potential impact of certain market risks, including foreign currency exchange rate risk. We use various types of derivative financial instruments, including forward contracts, options and swaps. We do not enter into or hold derivative financial instruments for trading or speculative purposes.

Our investment in ABI, whose functional currency is the Euro, exposes us to foreign currency exchange risk on the carrying value of our investment. To manage this risk, we may designate certain foreign exchange contracts, including cross-currency swap contracts and forward contracts (collectively, “foreign currency contracts”), and Euro denominated unsecured long-term notes (“foreign currency denominated debt”) as net investment hedges of our investment in ABI.

The following table provides the aggregate carrying value and fair value of our foreign currency denominated debt:

The pre-tax effects of our net investment hedges on accumulated other comprehensive losses and our condensed consolidated statements of earnings were as follows:

We make contributions to our pension plans to the extent that the contributions are tax deductible and pays benefits that relate to plans for salaried employees that cannot be funded under Internal Revenue Service regulations. We made employer contributions of $3 million to our pension plans and did not make any contributions to our postretirement plans during the three months ended March 31, 2022. Currently, we anticipate making additional employer contributions to our pension and postretirement plans of up to approximately $30 million for each plan in 2022. However, the foregoing estimates of 2022 contributions to our pension and postretirement plans are subject to change as a result of changes in tax and other benefit laws, changes in interest rates, as well as asset performance significantly above or below the assumed long-term rate of return for each respective plan.

The following tables set forth the changes in each component of accumulated other comprehensive losses, net of deferred income taxes, attributable to Altria:

The following table sets forth pre-tax amounts by component, reclassified from accumulated other comprehensive losses to net earnings:

Our products include smokeable tobacco products, consisting of combustible cigarettes manufactured and sold by PM USA, and machine-made large cigars and pipe tobacco manufactured and sold by Middleton; oral tobacco products, consisting of MST and snus products manufactured and sold by USSTC, and oral nicotine pouches manufactured and sold by Helix. These products and services constitute our reportable segments of smokeable products and oral tobacco products at March 31, 2022. The financial services and the innovative tobacco products businesses, which include the heated tobacco business and Helix ROW, are included in all other.

Prior to the sale of our wine business on October 1, 2021, wine produced and/or sold by Ste. Michelle was a reportable segment.

Our chief operating decision maker (“CODM”) reviews operating companies income (loss) (“OCI”) to evaluate the performance of, and allocate resources to, our segments. OCI for our segments is defined as operating income before general corporate expenses and amortization of intangibles. Interest and other debt expense, net, along with net periodic benefit income/cost, excluding service cost, and provision for income taxes are centrally managed at the corporate level and, accordingly, such items are not presented by segment since they are excluded from the measure of segment profitability reviewed by our CODM.

At March 31, 2022 and December 31, 2021, we had no short-term borrowings.

We have a senior unsecured 5-year revolving credit agreement (as amended, the “Credit Agreement”) that provides for borrowings up to an aggregate principal amount of $3.0 billion. The Credit Agreement, which is used for general corporate purposes, expires on August 1, 2024 and includes an option, subject to certain conditions, for Altria to extend the expiration date for an additional one-year period.

At March 31, 2022, we had availability under the Credit Agreement for borrowings of up to an aggregate principal amount of $3.0 billion.

Pricing for interest and fees under the Credit Agreement may be modified in the event of a change in the rating of our long-term senior unsecured debt. Interest rates on borrowings under the Credit Agreement are expected to be based on LIBOR, or a fallback benchmark rate determined based on prevailing market convention, plus a percentage based on the higher of the ratings of our long-term senior unsecured debt from Moody’s Investors Service, Inc. (“Moody’s”) and Standard & Poor’s Financial Services LLC (“S&P”). The applicable percentage based on our long-term senior unsecured debt ratings at March 31, 2022 for borrowings under the Credit Agreement was 1.0%. The Credit Agreement does not include any other rating triggers or any provisions that could require the posting of collateral.

The Credit Agreement includes various covenants, one of which requires us to maintain a ratio of consolidated earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization (“EBITDA”) to Consolidated Interest Expense of not less than 4.0 to 1.0, calculated as of the end of the applicable quarter on a rolling four quarters basis. At March 31, 2022, the ratio of consolidated EBITDA to Consolidated Interest Expense, calculated in accordance with the Credit Agreement, was 10.7 to 1.0. At March 31, 2022, we were in compliance with our covenants in the Credit Agreement. The terms “Consolidated EBITDA” and “Consolidated Interest Expense,” each as defined in the Credit Agreement, include certain adjustments.

Any commercial paper issued by us and borrowings under the Credit Agreement are guaranteed by PM USA.

The aggregate carrying value of our total long-term debt at March 31, 2022 and December 31, 2021 was $27.9 billion and $28.0 billion, respectively.

During the first quarter of 2021, we issued long-term senior unsecured notes in the aggregate principal amount of $5.5 billion. We used the net proceeds from these notes (i) to fund the purchase and redemption of certain unsecured notes and payment of related fees and expenses, as described below, and (ii) for other general corporate purposes.

During the first quarter of 2021, we completed debt tender offers to purchase for cash certain of our long-term senior unsecured notes in an aggregate principal amount of $4,042 million and also redeemed all of our outstanding 3.490% notes due 2022 in an aggregate principal amount of $1.0 billion.

As a result of the debt tender offers and redemption, during the first quarter of 2021, we recorded pre-tax losses on early extinguishment of debt of $649 million, which included premiums and fees of $623 million and the write-off of unamortized debt discounts and debt issuance costs of $26 million.

At March 31, 2022 and December 31, 2021, accrued interest on long-term debt of $236 million and $429 million, respectively, was included in other accrued liabilities on our condensed consolidated balance sheets.

Note 10. Contingencies

Legal proceedings covering a wide range of matters are pending or threatened in various United States and foreign jurisdictions against Altria and certain of our subsidiaries, including PM USA and USSTC, as well as our indemnitees and investees. Various types of claims may be raised in these proceedings, including product liability, unfair trade practices, antitrust, income tax liability, contraband shipments, patent infringement, employment matters, claims alleging violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”), claims for contribution and claims of competitors, shareholders or distributors. Legislative action, such as changes to tort law, also may expand the types of claims and remedies available to plaintiffs.

Litigation is subject to uncertainty and it is possible that there could be adverse developments in pending or future cases. An unfavorable outcome or settlement of pending tobacco-related or other litigation could encourage the commencement of additional litigation. Damages claimed in some tobacco-related and other litigation are or can be significant and, in certain cases, have ranged in the billions of 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. In certain cases, plaintiffs claim that defendants’ liability is joint and several. In such cases, we may face the risk that one or more co-defendants decline or otherwise fail to participate in the bonding required for an appeal or to pay their proportionate or jury-allocated share of a judgment. As a result, under certain circumstances, we may have to pay more than our proportionate share of any bonding- or judgment-related amounts. Furthermore, in those cases where plaintiffs are successful, we also may be required to pay interest and attorneys’ fees.

Although PM USA has historically been able to obtain required bonds or relief from bonding requirements in order to prevent plaintiffs from seeking to collect judgments while adverse verdicts have been appealed, there remains a risk that such relief may not be obtainable in all cases. This risk has been substantially reduced given that 47 states and Puerto Rico limit the dollar amount of bonds or require no bond at all. As discussed below, however, tobacco litigation plaintiffs have challenged the constitutionality of Florida’s bond cap statute in several cases and plaintiffs may challenge state bond cap statutes in other jurisdictions as well. Such challenges may include the applicability of state bond caps in federal court. States, including Florida, also may seek to repeal or alter bond cap statutes through legislation. Although we cannot predict the outcome of such challenges, 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 of one or more such challenges.

We have achieved substantial success in managing litigation. Nevertheless, litigation is subject to uncertainty and significant challenges remain. 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. We believe, and have 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. We have defended, and will continue to defend, vigorously against litigation challenges. However, we may enter into settlement discussions in particular cases if we believe it is in our best interests to do so.

cases brought by governmental (both domestic and foreign) plaintiffs seeking reimbursement for health care expenditures allegedly caused by cigarette smoking and/or disgorgement of profits; (iii) e-vapor cases alleging violation of RICO, fraud, failure to warn, design defect, negligence, antitrust and unfair trade practices; and (iv) other tobacco-related litigation described below. Plaintiffs’ theories of recovery and the defenses raised in tobacco-related litigation are discussed below.

The table below lists the number of certain tobacco-related cases pending in the United States against us as of:

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.

From time to time, legislation has been presented to the Florida legislature that would repeal the bond cap statute; however to date, no legislation repealing the statute has passed.

Although there have been some decisions to the contrary, most judicial decisions in the United States have dismissed all or most health care cost recovery claims against cigarette manufacturers. Nine federal circuit courts of appeals and eight 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 U.S. Supreme Court has refused to consider plaintiffs’ appeals from the cases decided by five federal circuit courts of appeal.

In addition to the cases brought in the United States, health care cost recovery actions have also been brought against tobacco industry participants, including PM USA and Altria, in Canada (10 cases), and other entities have stated that they are considering filing such actions.

Since the beginning of 2008, the Canadian Provinces of British Columbia, New Brunswick, Ontario, Newfoundland and Labrador, Quebec, Alberta, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Prince Edward Island and Nova Scotia have brought health care reimbursement claims against cigarette manufacturers. PM USA is named as a defendant in the British Columbia and Quebec cases, while both Altria and PM USA are named as defendants in the New Brunswick, Ontario, Newfoundland and Labrador, Alberta, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Prince Edward Island and Nova Scotia cases. The Nunavut Territory and Northwest

The independent auditor (“IA”) appointed under the MSA has calculated that PM USA’s share of the maximum potential NPM Adjustments for 2004-2021 is (exclusive of interest or earnings): $388 million for 2004; $181 million for 2005; $154 million for 2006; $185 million for 2007; $250 million for 2008; $211 million for 2009; $218 million for 2010; $166 million for 2011; $214 million for 2012; $224 million for 2013; $258 million for 2014; $313 million for 2015; $292 million for 2016; $285 million for 2017; $318 million for 2018; $415 million for 2019; $573 million for 2020; and $635 million for 2021. These maximum amounts will be reduced, likely substantially, to reflect the NPM Adjustment settlements discussed below, and potentially for current and future calculation disputes and other developments. In addition, PM USA’s recovery of these amounts, even as reduced, is dependent upon subsequent determinations regarding state-specific defenses and disputes with other PMs.

In December 2019, the State of Mississippi filed a motion in Mississippi state court seeking to enforce the Mississippi State Settlement Agreement against PM USA, R.J. Reynolds and ITG concerning the tax rates used in the annual calculation of the net operating profit adjustment payments starting in 2018. The Mississippi state court held a hearing in October 2021 and has not yet issued a decision.

In January 2021, PM USA and other PMs reached an agreement with several MSA states to waive the PMs’ claim under the most favored nation provision of the MSA in connection with a settlement between those MSA states and a non-participating manufacturer, S&M Brands, Inc. (“S&M Brands”), under which the states released certain claims against S&M Brands in exchange for receiving a portion of the funds S&M Brands deposited into escrow accounts in those states pursuant to the states’ escrow statutes. In consideration for waiving its most favored nation claim, PM USA received approximately $32 million from the escrow funds paid to those MSA states under their settlement with S&M Brands. These funds were received in January 2021 and were recorded in our condensed consolidated statement of earnings for the first quarter of 2021 as a reduction to cost of sales.

The court did not impose monetary penalties on defendants, but ordered the following relief: (i) an injunction against “committing any act of racketeering” relating to the manufacturing, marketing, promotion, health consequences or sale of cigarettes in the United States; (ii) an injunction against participating directly or indirectly in the management or control of the Council for Tobacco Research, the Tobacco Institute, or the Center for Indoor Air Research, or any successor or affiliated entities of each; (iii) an injunction against “making, or causing to be made in any way, any material false, misleading, or deceptive statement or representation or engaging in any public relations or marketing endeavor that is disseminated to the United States public and that misrepresents or suppresses information concerning cigarettes;” (iv) an injunction against

conveying any express or implied health message or health descriptors on cigarette packaging or in cigarette advertising or promotional material, including “lights,” “ultra lights” and “low tar,” which the court found could cause consumers to believe one cigarette brand is less hazardous than another brand; (v) the issuance of “corrective statements” in various media regarding the adverse health effects of smoking, the addictiveness of smoking and nicotine, the lack of any significant health benefit from smoking “low tar” or “light” cigarettes, defendants’ manipulation of cigarette design to ensure optimum nicotine delivery and the adverse health effects of exposure to ETS; (vi) the disclosure on defendants’ public document websites and in the Minnesota document repository of all documents produced to the government in the lawsuit or produced in any future court or administrative action concerning smoking and health until the third quarter of 2021, with certain additional requirements as to documents withheld from production under a claim of privilege or confidentiality; (vii) the disclosure of disaggregated marketing data to the government in the same form and on the same schedule as defendants now follow in disclosing such data to the FTC for a period of 10 years; (viii) certain restrictions on the sale or transfer by defendants of any cigarette brands, brand names, formulas or cigarette businesses within the United States; and (ix) payment of the government’s costs in bringing the action.

Following several years of appeals relating to the content of the corrective statements remedy described above, in October 2017, the district court approved the parties’ proposed consent order implementing corrective statements in newspapers and on television. The corrective statements began appearing in newspapers and on television in the fourth quarter of 2017. In April 2018, the parties reached agreement on the implementation details of the corrective statements on websites and onserts. The corrective statements began appearing on websites in the second quarter of 2018 and the onserts began appearing in the fourth quarter of 2018.

In 2014 and 2019, we recorded provisions totaling approximately $36 million for the estimated costs of implementing the corrective communications remedy.

The requirements related to corrective statements at point-of-sale remain outstanding. In May 2014, the district court ordered further briefing on the issue, which was completed in June 2014. In May 2018, the parties submitted a joint status report and additional briefing on point-of-sale signage to the district court. In May 2019, the district court ordered a hearing on the point-of-sale signage issue. The hearing is currently scheduled for June 2022.

As of April 25, 2022, we are defendants in 53 class action lawsuits relating to JUUL e-vapor products. JUUL is an additional named defendant in each of these lawsuits. The theories of recovery include violation of RICO, fraud, failure to warn, design defect, negligence and unfair trade practices. Plaintiffs seek various remedies, including compensatory and punitive damages and an injunction prohibiting product sales. The 53 class action lawsuits include 28 cases involving plaintiffs whose claims were previously included in other class action complaints but were refiled as separate stand-alone class actions for procedural and other reasons. NaN of the class action lawsuits are pending in Canada.

We also have been named as defendants in other lawsuits involving JUUL e-vapor products, including 2,891 individual lawsuits and 800 “third party” lawsuits, which include school districts, state and local governments and tribal and healthcare organization lawsuits. JUUL is an additional named defendant in each of these lawsuits.

In October 2019, the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ordered the coordination or consolidation of the federal individual and class action lawsuits mentioned above in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California for pretrial purposes.

We filed motions to dismiss certain claims in the class action and school district cases, including the federal RICO claim. In October 2020, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California granted the motion to dismiss the RICO class action claim without prejudice. Although it otherwise denied the motion, the court found that plaintiffs had not sufficiently alleged standing or causation with respect to their claim under California law. The court also granted the motion to dismiss the RICO claim in the cases filed by various school districts, but denied the motion in all other respects. The court gave plaintiffs the opportunity to amend their complaints to attempt to cure the deficiencies the court identified and plaintiffs filed their amended complaints in November 2020. In January 2021, we filed a renewed motion to dismiss the RICO claim, which the court denied in April 2021. The court has set dates for the first three cases to be tried in 2022, with the first case scheduled to commence in June 2022.