Vector Group Ltd.
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C. 20549
FORM 10-K
ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE
SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
For The Fiscal Year Ended December 31, 2004
VECTOR GROUP LTD.
(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)
|
|
|
|
|
Delaware |
|
1-5759 |
|
65-0949535 |
(State or other jurisdiction of incorporation or
organization) |
|
Commission File Number |
|
(I.R.S. Employer Identification No.) |
|
|
|
100 S.E. Second Street, Miami, Florida |
|
33131 |
(Address of principal executive offices) |
|
(Zip Code) |
(305) 579-8000
(Registrants telephone number, including area code)
Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the
Act:
|
|
|
|
|
Name of each exchange on |
Title of each class |
|
which registered |
|
|
|
Common Stock, par value $.10 per share
|
|
New York Stock Exchange |
Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the
Act:
None
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, as amended (the
Exchange Act), 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.
x Yes o
No
Indicate by check mark if disclosure of delinquent filers
pursuant to Item 405 Regulation S-K is not contained
herein, and will not be contained, to the best of the
Registrants knowledge, in definitive proxy or information
statement incorporated by reference in Part III of this
Form 10-K or any amendment to this Form 10-K.
x Yes o
No
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is an accelerated
filed (as defined in Exchange Act Rule 12b-2).
x Yes o
No
The aggregate market value of the common stock held by
non-affiliates of Vector Group Ltd. as of June 30, 2004 was
approximately $435 million.
At March 14, 2005, Vector Group Ltd. had 41,837,553 shares
of common stock outstanding.
Documents Incorporated by Reference:
Part III (Items 10, 11, 12 and 13) from the definitive
Proxy Statement for the 2005 Annual Meeting of Stockholders to
be filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission no later
than 120 days after the end of the Registrants fiscal
year covered by this report.
VECTOR GROUP LTD.
FORM 10-K
TABLE OF CONTENTS
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Page | |
|
|
|
|
| |
PART I |
|
Item 1 |
|
|
Business
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
Item 2 |
|
|
Properties
|
|
|
38 |
|
|
Item 3 |
|
|
Legal Proceedings
|
|
|
39 |
|
|
Item 4 |
|
|
Submission of Matters to a Vote of Security Holders; Executive
Officers of the Registrant
|
|
|
39 |
|
PART II |
|
Item 5 |
|
|
Market for Registrants Common Equity, Related Stockholder
Matters and Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities
|
|
|
41 |
|
|
Item 6 |
|
|
Selected Financial Data
|
|
|
42 |
|
|
Item 7 |
|
|
Managements Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition
and Results of Operations
|
|
|
43 |
|
|
Item 7A |
|
|
Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk
|
|
|
65 |
|
|
Item 8 |
|
|
Financial Statements and Supplementary Data
|
|
|
65 |
|
|
Item 9 |
|
|
Changes In and Disagreements with Accountants on Accounting and
Financial Disclosure
|
|
|
65 |
|
|
Item 9A |
|
|
Controls and Procedures
|
|
|
65 |
|
|
Item 9B |
|
|
Other Information
|
|
|
66 |
|
PART III |
|
Item 10 |
|
|
Directors and Executive Officers of the Registrant
|
|
|
66 |
|
|
Item 11 |
|
|
Executive Compensation
|
|
|
66 |
|
|
Item 12 |
|
|
Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and Management
and Related Stockholder Matters
|
|
|
66 |
|
|
Item 13 |
|
|
Certain Relationships and Related Transactions
|
|
|
66 |
|
|
Item 14 |
|
|
Principal Accountant Fees and Services
|
|
|
66 |
|
PART IV |
|
Item 15 |
|
|
Exhibits and Financial Statement Schedules
|
|
|
66 |
|
SIGNATURES |
|
|
73 |
|
PART I
Overview
Vector Group Ltd., a Delaware corporation, is a holding company
for a number of businesses. We hold these businesses through our
wholly-owned subsidiary VGR Holding Inc. We are engaged
principally in:
|
|
|
|
|
the manufacture and sale of cigarettes in the United States
through our subsidiary Liggett Group Inc., and |
|
|
|
the development and marketing of the low nicotine and
nicotine-free QUEST cigarette products and the development of
reduced risk cigarette products through our subsidiary Vector
Tobacco Inc. |
In recent years, we have undertaken a number of initiatives to
streamline the cost structure of our tobacco business and
improve operating efficiency and long-term earnings. During
2002, the sales and marketing functions, along with certain
support functions, of our Liggett and Vector Tobacco
subsidiaries were combined into a new entity, Liggett Vector
Brands Inc. This company coordinates and executes the sales and
marketing efforts for our tobacco operations.
Effective year-end 2003, we closed Vector Tobaccos
Timberlake, North Carolina cigarette manufacturing facility in
order to reduce excess cigarette production capacity and improve
operating efficiencies company-wide. Production of QUEST and
Vector Tobaccos other cigarette brands was transferred to
Liggetts state-of-the-art manufacturing facility in
Mebane, North Carolina. In July 2004, we completed the sale of
the Timberlake facility and equipment.
In April 2004, we eliminated a number of positions in our
tobacco operations and subleased excess office space. In October
2004, we announced a plan to restructure the operations of
Liggett Vector Brands. Liggett Vector Brands has realigned its
sales force and adjusted its business model to more efficiently
serve its chain and independent accounts nationwide. In
connection with the restructuring, we eliminated approximately
330 full-time positions and 135 part-time positions as of
December 15, 2004.
Our majority-owned subsidiary, New Valley Corporation, is
currently engaged in the real estate business and is seeking to
acquire additional operating companies and real estate
properties. In December 2002, New Valley increased its ownership
to 50% in Douglas Elliman Realty, LLC, which operates the
largest residential brokerage company in the New York
metropolitan area. In February 2005, New Valley completed the
sale for $71.5 million of its two office buildings in
Princeton, New Jersey.
We are controlled by Bennett S. LeBow, our Chairman and the
Chairman of New Valley, who beneficially owns approximately
34.9% of our common stock.
Financial information relating to our business segments can be
found in Note 21 to our consolidated financial statements.
For the purposes of this discussion and segment reporting in
this report, references to the Liggett segment encompass the
manufacture and sale of conventional cigarettes and includes the
former operations of The Medallion Company, Inc. acquired on
April 1, 2002 (which operations are held for legal purposes
as part of Vector Tobacco). References to the Vector Tobacco
segment include the development and marketing of the low
nicotine and nicotine-free cigarette products as well as the
development of reduced risk cigarette products and, for these
purposes, exclude the operations of Medallion.
Strategy
Our strategy is to maximize shareholder value by increasing the
profitability of our subsidiaries in the following ways:
|
|
|
|
|
Capitalize upon Liggetts cost advantage in the U.S.
cigarette market due to the favorable treatment that it receives
under settlement agreements with the state attorneys general and
the Master Settlement Agreement, |
|
|
|
Focus marketing and selling efforts on the discount segment,
continue to build volume and margin in core discount brands
(LIGGETT SELECT and EVE) and utilize core brand equity to
selectively build distribution, |
|
|
|
Continue product development to provide the best quality
products relative to other discount products in the marketplace, |
|
|
|
Increase efficiency by developing and adopting an organizational
structure to maximize profit potential, |
|
|
|
Expand the portfolio of private and control label partner brands
utilizing a pricing strategy that offers long-term list price
stability for customers, |
|
|
|
Bring relevant niche-driven brands to the market in the future,
and |
|
|
|
Pursue strategic acquisitions of smaller tobacco manufacturers. |
|
|
|
|
|
Take a measured approach to expanding the market presence of the
QUEST brand, |
|
|
|
Continue to pursue the QUEST technology as a smoking cessation
aid, and |
|
|
|
Continue to conduct appropriate studies relating OMNIs
reduction of carcinogens to reduced risk in smoking and review
the marketing and positioning of the OMNI brand in order to
formulate a strategy for its long-term success. |
|
|
|
|
|
Continue to grow Douglas Elliman operations by utilizing its
strong brand name recognition and pursuing strategic and
financial opportunities, |
|
|
|
Continue to leverage our expertise as direct investors by
actively pursuing real estate investments in the United States
and abroad which we believe will generate above-market returns, |
|
|
|
Acquire operating companies through mergers, asset purchases,
stock acquisitions or other means, and |
|
|
|
Invest New Valleys excess funds opportunistically in
situations that we believe can maximize shareholder value. |
Liggett Group Inc.
General. Liggett, which is the operating successor to the
Liggett & Myers Tobacco Company, is currently the fifth
largest manufacturer of cigarettes in the United States in terms
of unit sales. Liggetts manufacturing facilities are
located in Mebane, North Carolina.
Liggett is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Brooke Group Holding
Inc., our predecessor and a wholly-owned subsidiary of VGR
Holding.
Liggett manufactures and sells cigarettes in the United States.
According to data from Management Science Associates, Inc.,
Liggetts domestic shipments of approximately
9 billion cigarettes during 2004 accounted for 2.3% of the
total cigarettes shipped in the United States during such year.
This market share
2
percentage represents a decrease of 0.1% from 2003 and 2002.
Historically, Liggett produced premium cigarettes as well as
discount cigarettes (which include among others, control label,
private label, branded discount and generic cigarettes). Premium
cigarettes are generally marketed under well-recognized brand
names at higher retail prices to adult smokers with a strong
preference for branded products, whereas discount cigarettes are
marketed at lower retail prices to adult smokers who are more
cost conscious. In recent years, the discounting of premium
cigarettes has become far more significant in the marketplace.
This has led to some brands that were traditionally considered
premium brands to become more appropriately categorized as
branded discount, following list price reductions.
Liggetts EVE and JADE brands would fall into that
category. All of Liggetts unit volume in 2004 and
approximately 94.6% of Liggetts unit volume in 2003 were
in the discount segment, which Liggetts management
believes has been the primary growth segment in the industry for
over a decade.
Liggetts cigarettes are produced in approximately 220
combinations of length, style and packaging. Liggetts
current brand portfolio includes:
|
|
|
|
|
LIGGETT SELECT the second largest brand in the deep
discount category, |
|
|
|
EVE a leading brand of 120 millimeter cigarettes in
the branded discount category, |
|
|
|
JADE a free-standing deep discount menthol brand, |
|
|
|
PYRAMID the industrys first deep discount
product with a brand identity, and |
|
|
|
USA and various control and private label brands. |
In 1980, Liggett was the first major domestic cigarette
manufacturer to successfully introduce discount cigarettes as an
alternative to premium cigarettes. In 1989, Liggett established
a new price point within the discount market segment by
introducing PYRAMID, a branded discount product which, at that
time, sold for less than most other discount cigarettes. In
1999, Liggett introduced LIGGETT SELECT, one of the fastest
growing brands in the deep discount category. LIGGETT SELECT is
now the largest seller in Liggetts family of brands,
comprising 55.8% of Liggetts unit volume in 2004, 50.9% in
2003 and 42.1% in 2002. According to Management Science
Associates data, Liggett held a share of approximately 7.4% of
the overall discount market segment for 2004 compared to 7.3%
for 2003 and 6.7% for 2002.
Liggetts premium cigarettes represented approximately 6.2%
in 2003 and 9.8% in 2002 of Liggetts revenues. According
to Management Science Associates data, Liggetts unit share
of the premium market segment was approximately 0.3% in 2003 and
2002. Until May 1999, Liggett produced four premium cigarette
brands: L&M, CHESTERFIELD, LARK and EVE. As part of the
Philip Morris brand transaction (which is further described
below) which closed in May 1999, Liggett transferred the
L&M, CHESTERFIELD and LARK brands.
Liggett introduced nationally a new premium cigarette, JADE, in
September 2001. JADE is a menthol cigarette with unique
holographic packaging. JADEs sales represented 14.2% of
Liggetts total premium unit sales during 2003 and 27.8%
during 2002.
Effective February 1, 2004, Liggett reduced the JADE and
EVE list prices from the premium price level to the deep
discount level for JADE and the branded discount level for EVE.
During 2003, the net list prices for JADE and EVE were at
discount levels after giving effect to promotional spending.
In March 2005, Liggett Vector Brands announced an agreement with
Couche-Tard Inc., which operates over 2,200 convenience stores
in the United States under the Circle K and Macs names.
Liggett Vector Brands will manufacture MONTEGO, a branded
discount brand, exclusively for the Circle K and Macs
stores. The cigarette is the first to be offered under Liggett
Vector Brands new Partner Brands program which
offers customers quality product with long-term price stability.
The source of industry data in this report is Management Science
Associates, Inc., an independent third-party database management
organization that collects wholesale shipment data from various
cigarette manufacturers and provides analysis of market share,
unit sales volume and premium versus discount mix for individual
companies and the industry as a whole. Management Science
Associates information relating to
3
unit sales volume and market share of certain of the smaller,
primarily deep discount, cigarette manufacturers is based on
estimates developed by Management Science Associates. Effective
June 2004, Management Science Associates made three changes in
the information it reports as noted below and these changes are
reflected in the information presented in this report:
|
|
|
|
|
Management Science Associates is now reporting actual units
shipped by Commonwealth Brands, Inc. |
|
|
|
Management Science Associates has implemented a new model for
estimating unit sales volume for certain of the smaller,
primarily deep discount cigarette manufacturers. |
|
|
|
Management Science Associates has restated volume and the
resulting effects on share of market from January 2001 forward. |
The effects of these changes are that total industry volume
increased based on new smaller manufacturer estimates and actual
reported volume for Commonwealth and, based on the revised
industry volume number, market shares for the major tobacco
companies, including Liggett, have been restated from January
2001 forward and will be lower. Under the Management Science
Associates new method for computing market share, Liggett
and Vector Tobacco accounted for approximately 2.2% of the total
cigarettes shipped in the United States during 2001, 2.4% during
2002 and 2.5% during 2003, as compared to 2.2% during 2001, 2.5%
during 2002 and 2.7% during 2003 under the past method. Liggett
management continues to believe that the volume and market share
information published by Management Science Associates for
smaller manufacturers is understated and, correspondingly, share
information for the larger manufacturers, including Liggett, is
overstated by Management Science Associates.
We believe that Liggett has gained a sustainable cost advantage
over its competitors through its various settlement agreements.
Under the Master Settlement Agreement reached in November 1998
with 46 state attorneys general and various territories, the
three largest cigarette manufacturers must make settlement
payments to the states and territories based on how many
cigarettes they sell annually. Liggett, however, is not required
to make any payments unless its market share exceeds
approximately 1.65% of the U.S. cigarette market. Additionally,
as a result of the Medallion acquisition, Vector Tobacco
likewise has no payment obligation unless its market share
exceeds approximately 0.28% of the U.S. market.
In November 1999, Liggett acquired an industrial facility in
Mebane, North Carolina. Liggett completed the relocation of its
tobacco manufacturing operations from its old plant in Durham,
North Carolina to the Mebane facility in October 2000. Effective
January 1, 2004, Liggett produces all of Vector
Tobaccos cigarette brands at the Mebane facility pursuant
to a contract manufacturing agreement.
At the present time, Liggett has no foreign operations. Liggett
does not own the international rights to EVE, which is marketed
by Philip Morris in foreign markets. Prior to 2003, Liggett
exported other cigarette brands primarily to Eastern Europe and
the Middle East. Revenues from export sales were
$0.2 million for 2002, with operating income attributable
to export sales of approximately $36,000 in 2002. In 2000,
Liggett effectively terminated its export business, other than
to complete existing contracts, as domestic margins, on even the
lowest priced brands, exceeded those of its export sales.
Business Strategy. Liggetts business strategy is to
capitalize upon its cost advantage in the United States
cigarette market due to the favorable treatment Liggett receives
under the settlement agreements with the state attorneys general
and the Master Settlement Agreement. Liggetts long-term
business strategy is to continue to focus its marketing and
selling efforts on the discount segment of the market, to
continue to build volume and margin in its core discount brands
(LIGGETT SELECT and EVE) and to utilize its core brand equity to
selectively build distribution. Liggett intends to continue its
product development to provide the best quality products
relative to other discount products in the market place. Liggett
will continue to seek to increase efficiency by developing and
adopting its organizational structure to maximize profit
potential. Liggett intends to expand the portfolio of its
private and control label partner brands utilizing a pricing
strategy that offers long-term list price stability for
customers. In addition, Liggett may bring niche-driven brands to
the market in the future. Liggett may also pursue strategic
acquisitions of smaller tobacco manufacturers.
4
Sales, Marketing and Distribution. Liggetts
products are distributed from a central distribution center in
Mebane to 18 public warehouses located throughout the United
States. These warehouses serve as local distribution centers for
Liggetts customers. Liggetts products are
transported from the central distribution centers to the
warehouses via third-party trucking companies to meet
pre-existing contractual obligations to its customers.
Liggetts customers are primarily candy and tobacco
distributors, the military, warehouse club chains, and large
grocery, drug and convenience store chains. Liggett offers its
customers discount payment terms, traditional rebates and
promotional incentives. Customers typically pay for purchased
goods within two weeks following delivery from Liggett, and
approximately 90% of customers pay more rapidly through
electronic funds transfer arrangements. Liggetts largest
single customer, Speedway SuperAmerica LLC, accounted for
approximately 13.8% of its revenues in 2004, 16.6% of its
revenues in 2003 and 16.5% of its revenues in 2002. Sales to
this customer were primarily in the private label discount
segment and constituted approximately 13.8% 2004, 17.7% in 2003
and 18.1% in 2002 of Liggetts revenues from discount
cigarettes. Liggetts contract with this customer currently
extends through June 30, 2005, and the parties are in
negotiations for an extension of the contract.
During 2002, the sales and marketing functions, along with
certain support functions, of our Liggett and Vector Tobacco
subsidiaries were combined into a new entity, Liggett Vector
Brands. This company coordinates and executes the sales and
marketing efforts for all of our tobacco operations. With the
combined resources of Liggett and Vector Tobacco, Liggett Vector
Brands has enhanced distribution and marketing capabilities. In
connection with the formation of Liggett Vector Brands, we took
a restructuring charge of $3.46 million in the first
quarter of 2002, related to the reorganization of our business.
As of March 31, 2003, these restructuring activities were
substantially completed.
In April 2004, we eliminated a number of positions in our
tobacco operations and subleased excess office space. In October
2004, we announced a plan to restructure the operations of
Liggett Vector Brands. Liggett Vector Brands has realigned its
sales force and adjusted its business model to more efficiently
serve its chain and independent accounts nationwide. In
connection with the restructuring, we eliminated approximately
330 full-time positions and 135 part-time positions as of
December 15, 2004.
Trademarks. All of the major trademarks used by Liggett
are federally registered or are in the process of being
registered in the United States and other markets. Trademark
registrations typically have a duration of ten years and can be
renewed at Liggetts option prior to their expiration date.
In view of the significance of cigarette brand awareness among
consumers, management believes that the protection afforded by
these trademarks is material to the conduct of its business. All
of Liggetts trademarks are owned by its wholly-owned
subsidiary, Eve Holdings Inc., except for the JADE trademark,
which is licensed on a long-term exclusive basis from a
third-party for use in connection with cigarettes.
Manufacturing. Liggett purchases and maintains leaf
tobacco inventory to support its cigarette manufacturing
requirements. Liggett believes that there is a sufficient supply
of tobacco within the worldwide tobacco market to satisfy its
current production requirements. Liggett stores its leaf tobacco
inventory in warehouses in North Carolina and Virginia. There
are several different types of tobacco, including flue-cured
leaf, burley leaf, Maryland leaf, oriental leaf, cut stems and
reconstituted sheet. Leaf components of American-style
cigarettes are generally the flue-cured and burley tobaccos.
While premium and discount brands use many of the same tobacco
products, input ratios of tobacco products may vary between
premium and discount products. Foreign flue-cured and burley
tobaccos, some of which are used in the manufacture of
Liggetts cigarettes, are generally 30% to 35% less
expensive than comparable domestic tobaccos. Liggett normally
purchases all of its tobacco requirements from domestic and
foreign leaf tobacco dealers, much of it under long-term
purchase commitments. As of December 31, 2004, virtually
all of Liggetts commitments were for the purchase of
foreign tobacco.
Liggetts cigarette manufacturing facilities in Mebane,
North Carolina were designed for the execution of short
production runs in a cost-effective manner, which enable Liggett
to manufacture and market a wide variety of cigarette brand
styles. Liggetts cigarettes are produced in approximately
220 different brand styles
5
under Eves trademarks and brand names as well as private
labels for other companies, typically retail or wholesale
distributors who supply supermarkets and convenience stores.
Beginning in October 2001, Liggett upgraded the efficiency of
its manufacturing operation with the addition of four new
state-of-the-art cigarette makers and packers as well as related
equipment. The installation of the new lines continued through
May 2002. The total cost of these upgrades was approximately
$20 million. During 2002, Liggett also installed a new
tobacco dryer that has improved both production capacity and the
quality of blends. The cost of the new dryer was approximately
$2.9 million.
During 2003, Liggett leased two 100 millimeter box packers,
which has allowed Liggett to meet the growing demand for this
cigarette style, and a new filter maker to improve product
quality and capacity. These operating lease agreements provide
for payments totaling approximately $4.5 million.
The Mebane facility currently produces approximately
9 billion cigarettes per year, but maintains the capacity
to produce approximately 16 billion cigarettes per year.
Vector Tobacco has contracted with Liggett to produce its
cigarettes and has transferred production from the Timberlake
facility, which has been sold, to Mebane. All production ceased
at Timberlake by December 31, 2003. As part of the
transition, we eliminated approximately 150 positions.
While Liggett pursues product development, its total
expenditures for research and development on new products have
not been financially material over the past three years.
Competition. Liggetts competition is now divided
into two segments. The first segment is made up of the three
largest manufacturers of cigarettes in the United States: Philip
Morris USA Inc., Reynolds American Inc. (following the
combination of RJR Tobacco and Brown & Williamsons
United States tobacco businesses in July 2004) and Lorillard
Tobacco Company. The three largest manufacturers, while
primarily premium cigarette based companies, also produce and
sell discount cigarettes. The second segment of competition is
comprised of a group of smaller manufacturers and importers,
most of which sell lower quality, deep discount cigarettes.
Historically, there have been substantial barriers to entry into
the cigarette business, including extensive distribution
organizations, large capital outlays for sophisticated
production equipment, substantial inventory investment, costly
promotional spending, regulated advertising and, for premium
brands, strong brand loyalty. However, in recent years, a number
of these smaller companies have been able to overcome these
competitive barriers due to excess production capacity in the
industry and the cost advantage for certain manufacturers and
importers created by the Master Settlement Agreement.
Many smaller manufacturers and importers have generally not yet
been impacted to a significant degree by the Master Settlement
Agreement and, because of their significant cost advantages,
have primarily focused on the deepest discount segment of the
market. Liggetts management believes, while these
companies have significantly increased market share through
competitive discounting in this segment, they will lose their
cost advantage over time as their payment obligations under the
Master Settlement Agreement increase and the agreements
provisions are more effectively enforced by the states.
In the cigarette business, Liggett competes on a dual front. The
three major manufacturers compete among themselves for premium
brand market share, and compete with Liggett and others for
discount market share, on the basis of brand loyalty,
advertising and promotional activities, and trade rebates and
incentives. These three competitors all have substantially
greater financial resources and most of their brands have
greater sales and consumer recognition than Liggetts
products. Liggetts discount brands must also compete in
the marketplace with the smaller manufacturers and
importers deep discount brands.
According to Management Science Associates data, the unit sales
of Philip Morris, Reynolds American and Lorillard accounted in
the aggregate for approximately 83.2% of the domestic cigarette
market in 2004. Liggetts domestic shipments of
approximately 9 billion cigarettes during 2004 accounted
for 2.3% of the approximately 394 billion cigarettes
shipped in the United States during that year, compared to
9.8 billion cigarettes in 2003 (2.4%) and 9.8 billion
cigarettes (2.4%) during 2002.
6
Industry-wide shipments of cigarettes in the United States have
been generally declining for a number of years, with Management
Science Associates data indicating that domestic industry-wide
shipments decreased by approximately 1.7% (7 billion units)
in 2004. Liggetts management believes this decline may be
overstated due to volume for various smaller manufacturers
continuing to be understated by Management Science Associates.
However, Liggetts management does believe that
industry-wide shipments of cigarettes in the United States will
generally continue to decline as a result of numerous factors,
including health considerations, diminishing social acceptance
of smoking, legislative limitations on smoking in public places,
federal and state excise tax increases and settlement-related
expenses, which have contributed to high cigarette price levels
in recent years.
Historically, because of their dominant market share, Philip
Morris and RJR Tobacco (which is now part of Reynolds American),
the two largest cigarette manufacturers, have been able to
determine cigarette prices for the various pricing tiers within
the industry and the other cigarette manufacturers have brought
their prices in line with the levels established by the two
industry leaders. Off-list price discounting and similar
promotional activity by manufacturers, however, has
substantially affected the average price differential at retail,
which can be significantly less than the manufacturers
list price gap. Recent discounting by manufacturers has been far
greater than historical levels, and the actual price gap between
premium and deep-discount cigarettes has changed accordingly.
This has led to shifts in price segment performance depending
upon the actual retail price gaps of products at retail.
In July 2004, RJR Tobacco and Brown & Williamson, the second
and third largest cigarette manufacturers, completed the
combination of their United States tobacco businesses to create
Reynolds American. This transaction will further consolidate the
dominance of the domestic cigarette market by Philip Morris and
the newly created Reynolds American, who will have a combined
market share of approximately 76%. This concentration of United
States market share could make it more difficult for Liggett and
Vector Tobacco to compete for shelf space in retail outlets and
could impact price competition in the market, either of which
could have a material adverse affect on their sales volume,
operating income and cash flows.
Acquisition of Medallion. In April 2002, a subsidiary of
ours acquired the stock of The Medallion Company, Inc., and
related assets from Gary L. Hall, Medallions principal
stockholder. The total purchase price consisted of
$50 million in cash and $60 million in notes, with the
notes guaranteed by us and Liggett. Medallion is a discount
cigarette manufacturer selling product in the deep discount
category, primarily under the USA brand name. Medallion is a
participating manufacturer under the Master Settlement
Agreement. Medallion has no payment obligations under the Master
Settlement Agreement unless its market share exceeds
approximately 0.28% of total cigarettes sold in the United
States (approximately 1.1 billion cigarettes in 2004).
Following the purchase of the Medallion stock, Vector Tobacco
merged into Medallion and Medallion changed its name to Vector
Tobacco Inc. For purposes of this discussion and segment
reporting in this report, references to the Liggett segment
encompass the manufacture and sale of conventional cigarettes
and include the former operations of Medallion (which operations
are held for legal purposes as part of Vector Tobacco).
Philip Morris Brand Transaction. In November 1998, we and
Liggett granted Philip Morris options to purchase interests in
Trademarks LLC which holds three domestic cigarette brands,
L&M, CHESTERFIELD and LARK, formerly held by Liggetts
subsidiary, Eve.
Under the terms of the Philip Morris agreements, Eve contributed
the three brands to Trademarks, a newly-formed limited liability
company, in exchange for 100% of two classes of Trademarks
interests, the Class A Voting Interest and the Class B
Redeemable Nonvoting Interest. Philip Morris acquired two
options to purchase the interests from Eve. In December 1998,
Philip Morris paid Eve a total of $150 million for the
options, $5 million for the option for the Class A
interest and $145 million for the option for the
Class B interest.
The Class A option entitled Philip Morris to purchase the
Class A interest for $10.1 million. On March 19,
1999, Philip Morris exercised the Class A option, and the
closing occurred on May 24, 1999.
7
The Class B option entitles Philip Morris to purchase the
Class B interest for $139.9 million. The Class B
option will be exercisable during the 90-day period beginning on
December 2, 2008, with Philip Morris being entitled to
extend the 90-day period for up to an additional six months
under certain circumstances. The Class B interest will also
be redeemable by Trademarks for $139.9 million during the
same period the Class B option may be exercised.
On May 24, 1999, Trademarks borrowed $134.9 million
from a lending institution. The loan is guaranteed by Eve and is
collateralized by a pledge by Trademarks of the three brands and
Trademarks interest in the trademark license agreement
(discussed below) and by a pledge by Eve of its Class B
interest. In connection with the closing of the Class A
option, Trademarks distributed the loan proceeds to Eve as the
holder of the Class B interest. The cash exercise price of
the Class B option and Trademarks redemption price
were reduced by the amount distributed to Eve. Upon Philip
Morris exercise of the Class B option or
Trademarks exercise of its redemption right, Philip Morris
or Trademarks, as relevant, will be required to obtain
Eves release from its guaranty. The Class B interest
will be entitled to a guaranteed payment of $0.5 million
each year with the Class A interest allocated all remaining
income or loss of Trademarks.
Trademarks has granted Philip Morris an exclusive license of the
three brands for an 11-year term expiring May 24, 2010 at
an annual royalty based on sales of cigarettes under the brands,
subject to a minimum annual royalty payment of not less than the
annual debt service obligation on the loan plus $1 million.
If Philip Morris fails to exercise the Class B option, Eve
will have an option to put its Class B interest to Philip
Morris, or Philip Morris designees, at a put price that is
$5 million less than the exercise price of the Class B
option (and includes Philip Morris obtaining Eves
release from its loan guaranty). The Eve put option is
exercisable at any time during the 90-day period beginning
March 2, 2010.
If the Class B option, Trademarks redemption right
and the Eve put option expire unexercised, the holder of the
Class B interest will be entitled to convert the
Class B interest, at its election, into a Class A
interest with the same rights to share in future profits and
losses, the same voting power and the same claim to capital as
the entire existing outstanding Class A interest, i.e., a
50% interest in Trademarks.
Upon the closing of the exercise of the Class A option and
the distribution of the loan proceeds on May 24, 1999,
Philip Morris obtained control of Trademarks, and we recognized
a pre-tax gain of $294.1 million in our consolidated
financial statements and established a deferred tax liability of
$103.1 million relating to the gain. As discussed in
Note 11 to our consolidated financial statements, the
Internal Revenue Service has issued to us a notice of proposed
adjustment asserting, for tax purposes, that the entire gain
should have been recognized by the Company in 1998 and 1999.
Vector Tobacco Inc.
Vector Tobacco, a wholly-owned subsidiary of VGR Holding, is
engaged in the development and marketing of the low nicotine and
nicotine-free QUEST cigarette products and the development of
reduced risk cigarette products.
QUEST. In January 2003, Vector Tobacco introduced QUEST,
its brand of low nicotine and nicotine-free cigarette products.
QUEST is designed for adult smokers who are interested in
reducing their levels of nicotine intake and is available in
both menthol and nonmenthol styles. Each QUEST style (regular
and menthol) offers three different packagings, with decreasing
amounts of nicotine - QUEST 1, 2 and 3. QUEST 1, the low
nicotine variety, contains 0.6 milligrams of nicotine. QUEST 2,
the extra-low nicotine variety, contains 0.3 milligrams of
nicotine. QUEST 3, the nicotine-free variety, contains only
trace levels of nicotine no more than 0.05
milligrams of nicotine per cigarette. QUEST cigarettes utilize
proprietary, patented and patent pending processes and materials
that enable the production of cigarettes with nicotine-free
tobacco that smokes, tastes and burns like tobacco in
conventional cigarettes. All six QUEST varieties are being sold
in hard packs and are priced comparable to other premium brands.
QUEST was initially available in New York, New Jersey,
Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois and Michigan. These seven
states account for approximately 30% of all cigarette sales in
the United States. A
8
multi-million dollar advertising and marketing campaign, with
advertisements running in magazines and regional newspapers,
supported the product launch. The brand continues to be
supported by point-of-purchase awareness campaigns and other
store-related promotions. Vector Tobacco has established a
website, www.questcigs.com, and a toll free hotline,
1-866-QUEST123, to provide consumers with additional information
about QUEST.
The premium segment of the tobacco industry continues to
experience intense competitive activity, with increased
discounting of premium brands at all levels of retail. Given
these marketplace conditions, and the results that we have seen
to date with QUEST, we have taken a measured approach to
expanding the market presence of the brand. In November 2003,
Vector Tobacco introduced three menthol varieties of QUEST in
the seven state market. In January 2004, QUEST and QUEST Menthol
were introduced into an expansion market in Arizona, which
accounts for approximately 2% of the industry volume nationwide.
During the second quarter 2004, based on an analysis of the
market data obtained since the introduction of the QUEST
product, we determined to postpone indefinitely the national
launch of QUEST. Vector Tobacco continues to explore potential
opportunities to expand the market for the brand on a more
limited basis. Any determination as to future expansion of the
market presence of QUEST will be based on the ongoing and
projected demand for the product, market conditions in the
premium segment and the prevailing regulatory environment,
including any restrictions on the advertising of the product.
During the second quarter of 2004, we recognized a non-cash
charge of $37 million to adjust the carrying value of
excess leaf tobacco inventory for the QUEST product, based on
estimates of future demand and market conditions. If actual
demand for the product or market conditions are less favorable
than those estimated, additional inventory write-downs may be
required.
QUEST brand cigarettes are currently marketed to permit adult
smokers, who wish to continue smoking, to gradually reduce their
intake of nicotine. The products are not labeled or advertised
for smoking cessation. To emphasize this important point for
consumers, Vector Tobacco has included the following additional
prominent warning on its QUEST advertising: WARNING: This
product is NOT intended for use in quitting smoking. QUEST is
for smokers seeking to reduce nicotine exposure only.
Vector Tobacco makes no claims that QUEST is safer than other
cigarette products.
In October 2003, we announced that Jed E. Rose, Ph.D., Director
of Duke University Medical Centers Nicotine Research
Program and co-inventor of the nicotine patch, had conducted a
study at Duke University Medical Center to provide preliminary
evaluation of the use of the QUEST technology as a smoking
cessation aid. In the preliminary study on QUEST, 33% of QUEST 3
smokers were able to achieve four-week continuous abstinence, a
standard threshold for smoking cessation. Management believes
these results show real promise for the QUEST technology as a
smoking cessation aid. We have received guidance from the Food
and Drug Administration as to the additional clinical research
and regulatory filings necessary to market QUEST as a smoking
cessation product. Management believes that obtaining the Food
and Drug Administrations approval to market QUEST as a
smoking cessation product will be an important factor in the
long-term commercial success of the QUEST brand. No assurance
can be given that such approval can be obtained or as to the
timing of any such approval if received.
The nicotine-free tobacco in QUEST cigarettes is produced by
genetically modifying nicotine-producing tobacco plants, using a
combination of patented and patent pending processes and
materials to produce tobacco plants which are essentially
nicotine-free. Management believes that, based on testing at
Vector Tobaccos research facility, the QUEST 3 product
will contain trace levels of nicotine that have no discernible
physiological impact on the smoker, and that, consistent with
other products bearing free claims, QUEST 3 may be
labeled as nicotine-free with an appropriate
disclosure of the trace levels. The QUEST 3 product is similarly
referred to in this report as nicotine-free. As the
process genetically blocks formation of nicotine in the root of
the plant, the tobacco leaf taste is not affected.
OMNI. In November 2001, Vector Tobacco launched OMNI
nationwide, the first reduced carcinogen cigarette that smokes,
tastes and burns like other premium cigarettes. In comparison to
comparable styles of the leading U.S. cigarette brand, OMNI
cigarettes produce significantly lower levels of many of the
9
recognized carcinogens and toxins that the medical community has
identified as major contributors to lung cancer and other
diseases in smokers. While OMNI has not been proven to reduce
health risks, management believes that the significant reduction
of carcinogens is a step in the right direction. The data show
lower levels in OMNI of the main carcinogens and toxins in both
mainstream and sidestream tobacco smoke, including polycyclic
aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), tobacco specific nitrosamines
(TSNAs), catechols and organics, with somewhat increased levels
of nitric oxide and formaldehyde. Mainstream smoke is what the
smoker directly inhales and sidestream smoke, which is the major
component of environmental tobacco smoke, is released from the
burning end of a cigarette.
During 2002, acceptance of OMNI in the marketplace was limited,
with revenues of approximately $5.1 million on sales of
70.7 million units. During 2003, OMNI sales activity was
minimal as Vector Tobacco has not been actively marketing the
OMNI product, and the product is not currently being
distributed. Vector Tobacco was unable to achieve the
anticipated breadth of distribution and sales of the OMNI
product due, in part, to the lack of success of its advertising
and marketing efforts in differentiating OMNI with consumers
through the reduced carcinogen message. Over the
next several years, our in-house research program, together with
third-party collaborators, plans to conduct appropriate studies
relating OMNIs reduction of carcinogens to reduced risk in
smokers and, based on these studies, management will review the
marketing and positioning of the OMNI brand in order to
formulate a strategy for its long-term success.
OMNI cigarettes are produced using a patent pending process
developed by Vector Tobacco. Traditional tobacco is treated with
a complex catalytic system that significantly reduces the levels
of certain carcinogens and other toxins. Additionally, OMNI
employs the use of an innovative carbon filter, which reduces a
wide range of harmful compounds in smoke, yet has no impact on
OMNIs premium taste. Vector Tobacco is committed to
continuing its research to find new, innovative ways to further
reduce carcinogens as well as other identified substances that
may play a role in smoking-related diseases.
The relationship between smoking and disease occurrence is
exceedingly complex. Vector Tobacco has begun the process of
devising and funding studies of the health impact of the OMNI
product. Vector Tobacco does not presently have any objective
evidence that OMNI cigarettes will reduce the known health risks
of cigarette smoking to the smoker or nonsmoking bystander, and
no health claims are being made by Vector Tobacco.
Manufacturing and Marketing. The QUEST brands are priced
as premium cigarettes and marketed by the sales representatives
of Liggett Vector Brands, which coordinates and executes the
sales and marketing efforts for all our tobacco operations. In
the fourth quarter of 2002, Vector Tobacco began production of
QUEST at a facility it had purchased in Timberlake, North
Carolina, and converted into a modern cigarette manufacturing
plant. In October 2003, we announced that we would close Vector
Tobaccos Timberlake facility in order to reduce excess
cigarette production capacity and improve operating efficiencies
company-wide. As of January 1, 2004, production of QUEST
and Vector Tobaccos other cigarette brands has been moved
to Liggetts state-of-the-art manufacturing facility in
Mebane, North Carolina.
The Mebane facility currently produces approximately
9 billion cigarettes per year, but maintains the capacity
to produce approximately 16 billion cigarettes per year.
Vector Tobacco has contracted with Liggett to produce its
cigarettes and has transferred production from Timberlake to
Mebane. All production ceased at Timberlake by December 31,
2003. As part of the transition, we eliminated approximately 150
positions.
As a result of these actions, we recognized pre-tax
restructuring and impairment charges of $21.3 million in
2003, and additional charges of $0.4 million were
recognized in 2004. Approximately $2.2 million relate to
employee severance and benefit costs, $0.7 million to
contract termination and exit and moving costs, and
$18.8 million to non-cash asset impairment charges.
Machinery and equipment to be disposed of was reduced to fair
value less costs to sell during 2003.
In July 2004, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Vector Tobacco
completed the sale of the Timberlake, North Carolina
manufacturing facility along with all equipment to an affiliate
of the Flue-Cured Tobacco Cooperative Stabilization Corporation
for $25.8 million. In connection with the closing, the
subsidiary of Vector Tobacco entered into a consulting agreement
to provide certain services to the buyer for $0.4 million,
10
all of which has been recognized by the Company in 2004.
Approximately $5.2 million of the proceeds from the sale
were used at closing to retire debt secured by the Timberlake
property.
We decreased the asset impairment accrual as of June 30,
2004 to reflect the actual amounts to be realized from the
Timberlake sale and to reduce the values of other excess Vector
Tobacco machinery and equipment in accordance with
SFAS No. 144. We also adjusted the previously recorded
restructuring accrual as of June 30, 2004 to reflect
additional employee severance and benefits, contract termination
and associated costs resulting from the Timberlake sale. No
charge to operations resulted from these adjustments as there
was no change to the total impairment and restructuring charges
previously recognized.
Liggett Vector Brands, as part of the continuing effort to
adjust the cost structure of our tobacco business and improve
operating efficiency, eliminated 83 positions during April 2004,
sublet its New York office space in July 2004 and relocated
several employees. As a result of these actions, we recognized
additional pre-tax restructuring charges of $2.7 million in
2004, including $0.8 million relating to employee severance
and benefit costs and $1.9 million for contract termination
and other associated costs. Approximately $0.5 million of
these charges represent non-cash items.
Annual cost savings related to the Timberlake restructuring and
impairment charges and the actions taken at Liggett Vector
Brands in the first half of 2004 were estimated to be at least
$23 million beginning in 2004.
On October 6, 2004, we announced an additional plan to
restructure the operations of Liggett Vector Brands, our sales,
marketing and distribution agent for our Liggett and Vector
Tobacco subsidiaries. Liggett Vector Brands has realigned its
sales force and adjusted its business model to more efficiently
serve its chain and independent accounts nationwide. In
connection with the restructuring, we eliminated approximately
330 full-time positions and 135 part-time positions as of
December 15, 2004.
As a result of the actions announced in October 2004, we
currently expect to realize annual cost savings of approximately
$30 million beginning in 2005. We recognized pre-tax
restructuring charges of $10.6 million in 2004.
Approximately $5.7 million of the charges related to
employee severance and benefit costs and approximately
$4.9 million to contract termination and other associated
costs. Approximately $2.5 million of these charges
represented non-cash items. Additionally, we incurred other
charges in 2004 for various compensation and related payments to
employees which were related to the restructuring. These charges
of $1.7 million were included in operating, selling,
administrative and general expenses. Management will continue to
review opportunities for additional cost savings in our tobacco
business.
The OMNI product used traditional tobaccos, and the QUEST 3
product uses genetically modified tobacco grown specifically for
Vector Tobacco. The Quest 1 and 2 products use a mixture of the
genetically modified tobacco as well as traditional tobaccos.
The introduction of the QUEST and OMNI brands required the
expenditure of substantial sums for advertising and sales
promotion. The advertising media used included age appropriate
magazines, newspapers, direct mail and point-of-sale display
materials. Sales promotion activities are conducted by
distribution of store coupons, point-of-sale display and
advertising, advertising in print media, and personal contact
with distributors, retailers and consumers.
Expenditures by Vector Tobacco for research and development
activities were $8.1 million in 2004, $9.8 million in
2003 and $9.7 million in 2002.
Competition. Vector Tobaccos competitors generally
have substantially greater resources than it, including
financial, marketing and personnel resources. Other major
tobacco companies have stated that they are working on reduced
risk cigarette products and have made publicly available at this
time only limited additional information concerning their
activities. Philip Morris has announced that it is developing
products that potentially reduce smokers exposure to
harmful compounds in cigarette smoke. RJR Tobacco has stated
that in 2003 it began a phased expansion into a select number of
retail chain outlets of a cigarette product that primarily heats
rather than burns tobacco, which it claims reduces the toxicity
of its smoke. In 2002, Brown & Williamson Tobacco
Corporation announced it was test marketing a new cigarette with
reduced levels of many
11
toxins which it may introduce on a national basis. There is a
substantial likelihood that other major tobacco companies will
continue to introduce new products that are designed to compete
directly with Vector Tobaccos reduced nicotine,
nicotine-free and reduced carcinogen products.
Intellectual Property. Vector Tobacco is the exclusive
sublicensee of the technology for reducing or eliminating
nicotine in tobacco through certain genetic engineering
techniques. Patents encompassing this technology have been
issued in the United States and more than 70 countries. Patent
applications encompassing this technology remain pending in the
United States and various other countries around the world.
Vector Tobacco has filed patent applications in the United
States, Europe, Japan and Hong Kong relating to the use of
palladium and other compounds to reduce the presence of
carcinogens and other toxins. A patent encompassing this
technology has been issued in the United States.
Extensive research related to the biological basis of
tobacco-related disease is being conducted at Vector Tobacco and
together with third-party collaborators. This research is being
directed by Dr. Anthony P. Albino, our Vice President of
Public Health. Vector Tobacco believes that as this research
progresses, it will generate additional intellectual property.
Risks. Vector Tobaccos new product initiatives are
subject to substantial risks, uncertainties and contingencies
which include, without limitation, the challenges inherent in
new product development initiatives, the ability to raise
capital and manage the growth of its business, recovery of costs
of inventory, the need to obtain Food and Drug Administration
approval to market QUEST as a smoking cessation product,
potential disputes concerning Vector Tobaccos intellectual
property, intellectual property of third parties, potential
extensive government regulation or prohibition, third party
allegations that Vector Tobacco products are unlawful or bear
deceptive or unsubstantiated product claims, potential delays in
obtaining tobacco, other raw materials and any technology needed
to produce Vector Tobaccos products, market acceptance of
Vector Tobaccos products, competition from companies with
greater resources and the dependence on key employees. See the
section entitled Risk Factors.
Legislation, Regulation and Litigation
Reports with respect to the alleged harmful physical effects of
cigarette smoking have been publicized for many years and, in
the opinion of Liggetts management, have had and may
continue to have an adverse effect on cigarette sales. Since
1964, the Surgeon General of the United States and the Secretary
of Health and Human Services have released a number of reports
which state that cigarette smoking is a causative factor with
respect to a variety of health hazards, including cancer, heart
disease and lung disease, and have recommended various
government actions to reduce the incidence of smoking. In 1997,
Liggett publicly acknowledged that, as the Surgeon General and
respected medical researchers have found, smoking causes health
problems, including lung cancer, heart and vascular disease, and
emphysema.
Since 1966, federal law has required that cigarettes
manufactured, packaged or imported for sale or distribution in
the United States include specific health warnings on their
packaging. Since 1972, Liggett and the other cigarette
manufacturers have included the federally required warning
statements in print advertising and on certain categories of
point-of-sale display materials relating to cigarettes. The
Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act requires that
packages of cigarettes distributed in the United States and
cigarette advertisements in the United States bear one of the
following four warning statements: SURGEON GENERALS
WARNING: Smoking Causes Lung Cancer, Heart Disease, Emphysema,
and May Complicate Pregnancy; SURGEON GENERALS
WARNING: Quitting Smoking Now Greatly Reduces Serious Risks to
Your Health; SURGEON GENERALS WARNING: Smoking
by Pregnant Women May Result in Fetal Injury, Premature Birth,
and Low Birth Weight; and SURGEON GENERALS
WARNING: Cigarette Smoke Contains Carbon Monoxide. The law
also requires that each person who manufactures, packages or
imports cigarettes annually provide to the Secretary of Health
and Human Services a list of ingredients added to tobacco in the
manufacture of cigarettes. Annual reports to the United States
Congress are also required from the Secretary of Health and
Human Services as to current information on the health
consequences of smoking and from the Federal Trade Commission on
the effectiveness of cigarette
12
labeling and current practices and methods of cigarette
advertising and promotion. Both federal agencies are also
required annually to make such recommendations as they deem
appropriate with regard to further legislation. In addition,
since 1997, Liggett has included the warning Smoking is
Addictive on its cigarette packages.
In August 1996, the Food and Drug Administration filed in the
Federal Register a final rule classifying tobacco as a
drug or medical device, asserting
jurisdiction over the manufacture and marketing of tobacco
products and imposing restrictions on the sale, advertising and
promotion of tobacco products. Litigation was commenced
challenging the FDAs authority to assert such
jurisdiction, as well as challenging the constitutionality of
the rules. In March 2000, the United States Supreme Court ruled
that the FDA does not have the power to regulate tobacco.
Liggett supported the FDA rule and began to phase in compliance
with certain of the proposed FDA regulations.
Since the Supreme Court decision, various proposals and
recommendations have been made for additional federal and state
legislation to regulate cigarette manufacturers. Congressional
advocates of FDA regulation have introduced legislation that
would give the FDA authority to regulate the manufacture, sale,
distribution and labeling of tobacco products to protect public
health, thereby allowing the FDA to reinstate its prior
regulations or adopt new or additional regulations. In October
2004, the Senate passed a bill, which did not become law,
providing for FDA regulation of tobacco products. The ultimate
outcome of these proposals cannot be predicted, but FDA
regulation of tobacco products could have a material adverse
effect on us.
In October 2004, federal legislation was enacted which will
eliminate the federal tobacco quota and price support program.
Pursuant to the legislation, manufacturers of tobacco products
will be assessed $10.1 billion over a ten year period to
compensate tobacco growers and quota holders for the elimination
of their quota rights. Cigarette manufacturers will initially be
responsible for 96.3% of the assessment (subject to adjustment
in the future), which will be allocated based on relative unit
volume of domestic cigarette shipments. Management currently
estimates that Liggetts assessment will be approximately
$23 million for the first year of the program which began
January 1, 2005. The cost of the legislation to the three
largest cigarette manufacturers will likely be less than the
cost to smaller manufacturers, including Liggett and Vector
Tobacco, because one effect of the legislation is that the three
largest manufacturers will no longer be obligated to make
certain contractual payments, commonly known as Phase II
payments, they agreed in 1999 to make to tobacco-producing
states. The ultimate impact of this legislation cannot be
determined, but there is a risk that smaller manufacturers, such
as Liggett and Vector Tobacco, will be disproportionately
affected by the legislation, which could have a material adverse
effect on us.
Effective October 22, 2004, Liggett increased the list
price of all its brands by $0.65 per carton. The increase was
taken due to the recently passed federal tobacco buyout
legislation.
In August 1996, Massachusetts enacted legislation requiring
tobacco companies to publish information regarding the
ingredients in cigarettes and other tobacco products sold in
that state. In December 2002, the United States Court of Appeals
for the First Circuit ruled that the ingredients disclosure
provisions violated the constitutional prohibition against
unlawful seizure of property by forcing firms to reveal trade
secrets. The decision was not appealed by the state. Liggett
began voluntarily complying with this legislation in December
1997 by providing ingredient information to the Massachusetts
Department of Public Health and, notwithstanding the appellate
courts ruling, has continued to provide ingredient
disclosure. Liggett also provides ingredient information
annually, as required by law, to the states of Texas and
Minnesota. Several other states are considering ingredient
disclosure legislation, and the Senate bill providing for FDA
regulation also calls for, among other things, ingredient
disclosure.
In February 1996, the United States Trade representative issued
an advance notice of proposed rule making concerning
how tobaccos imported under a previously established tobacco
tariff rate quota should be allocated. Currently, tobacco
imported under the quota is allocated on a first-come,
first-served basis, meaning that entry is allowed on an
open basis to those first requesting entry in the quota year.
Others in the cigarette industry have suggested an
end-user licensing system under which the right to
import tobacco under the quota would be initially assigned on
the basis of domestic market share. Such an approach, if
adopted, could have a material adverse effect on us.
13
A wide variety of federal, state and local laws limit the
advertising, sale and use of cigarettes, and these laws have
proliferated in recent years. For example, many local laws
prohibit smoking in restaurants and other public places, and
many employers have initiated programs restricting or
eliminating smoking in the workplace. There are various other
legislative efforts pending on the federal and state level which
seek, among other things, to eliminate smoking in public places,
to further restrict displays and advertising of cigarettes,
require additional warnings, including graphic warnings, on
cigarette packaging and advertising, ban vending machine sales
and curtail affirmative defenses of tobacco companies in product
liability litigation. This trend has had, and is likely to
continue to have, an adverse impact on us.
Cigarettes are subject to substantial and increasing federal,
state and local excise taxes. The federal excise tax on
cigarettes is currently $0.39 per pack. State and local sales
and excise taxes vary considerably and, when combined with the
current federal excise tax, may currently exceed $4.00 per pack.
In 2004, 10 states enacted increases in excise taxes. Congress
has considered significant increases in the federal excise tax
or other payments from tobacco manufacturers, and various states
and other jurisdictions have currently under consideration or
pending legislation proposing further state excise tax
increases. We believe that increases in excise and similar taxes
have had an adverse impact on sales of cigarettes.
Various state governments have adopted or are considering
adopting legislation establishing ignition propensity standards
for cigarettes. Compliance with this legislation could be
burdensome and costly. In June 2000, the New York State
legislature passed legislation charging the states Office
of Fire Prevention and Control, referred to as the
OFPC, with developing standards for
fire-safe or self-extinguishing cigarettes. All
cigarettes manufactured for sale in New York state must be
manufactured to certain self-extinguishment standards set out in
the regulations. Liggett and Vector Tobacco have not
historically provided products that would be compliant under
these new OFPC regulations, and certain design and manufacturing
changes have been necessary for cigarettes manufactured for sale
in New York to comply with the standards. Inventories of
cigarettes existing in the wholesale and retail trade as of
June 28, 2004 that do not comply with the standards, may
continue to be sold provided New York tax stamps have been
affixed and such inventories have been purchased in comparable
quantities to the same period in the previous year. Liggett and
Vector Tobacco have complied with these New York regulatory
requirements. Similar legislation is being considered by other
state governments and at the federal level. Compliance with such
legislation could harm the business of Liggett and Vector
Tobacco, particularly if there are varying standards from state
to state.
Federal or state regulators may object to Vector Tobaccos
low nicotine and nicotine-free cigarette products and reduced
risk cigarette products it may develop as unlawful or allege
they bear deceptive or unsubstantiated product claims, and seek
the removal of the products from the marketplace, or significant
changes to advertising. Various concerns regarding Vector
Tobaccos advertising practices have been expressed to
Vector Tobacco by certain state attorneys general. Vector
Tobacco has engaged in discussions in an effort to resolve these
concerns and Vector Tobacco has recently agreed to suspend all
print advertising for its QUEST brand while discussions are
pending. If Vector Tobacco is unable to advertise its QUEST
brand, it could have a material adverse effect on sales of
QUEST. Allegations by federal or state regulators, public health
organizations and other tobacco manufacturers that Vector
Tobaccos products are unlawful, or that its public
statements or advertising contain misleading or unsubstantiated
health claims or product comparisons, may result in litigation
or governmental proceedings. Vector Tobaccos business may
become subject to extensive domestic and international
government regulation. Various proposals have been made for
federal, state and international legislation to regulate
cigarette manufacturers generally, and reduced constituent
cigarettes specifically. It is possible that laws and
regulations may be adopted covering matters such as the
manufacture, sale, distribution and labeling of tobacco products
as well as any express or implied health claims associated with
reduced carcinogen and low nicotine and nicotine-free cigarette
products and the use of genetically modified tobacco. A system
of regulation by agencies such as the FDA, the Federal Trade
Commission and the United States Department of Agriculture may
be established. In addition, a group of public health
organizations submitted a petition to the FDA, alleging that the
marketing of the OMNI product is subject to regulation by the
FDA under existing law. Vector Tobacco has filed a response in
opposition to the petition. The FTC has expressed interest in
the regulation of tobacco products made by tobacco
manufacturers, including Vector Tobacco, which bear reduced
carcinogen claims. The outcome of
14
any of the foregoing cannot be predicted, but any of the
foregoing could have a material adverse impact on Vector
Tobaccos business, operating results and prospects.
The cigarette industry continues to be challenged on numerous
fronts. The industry is facing increased pressure from
anti-smoking groups and an increase in smoking and health
litigation, including private class action litigation and health
care cost recovery actions brought by governmental entities and
other third parties, the effects of which, at this time, we are
unable to evaluate. As of December 31, 2004, there were
approximately 330 individual suits, approximately 18 purported
class actions or actions where class certification has been
sought and approximately 17 governmental and other third-party
payor health care recovery actions pending in the United States
in which Liggett was a named defendant. In addition to these
cases, in 2000, an action against cigarette manufacturers
involving approximately 1,000 named individual plaintiffs was
consolidated before a single West Virginia state court. Liggett
is a defendant in most of the cases pending in West Virginia. In
January 2002, the court severed Liggett from the trial of the
consolidated action. There are six individual actions where
Liggett is the only defendant, with trial in one of these cases
currently scheduled for March 2005 and trial in another
scheduled for May 2005. In April 2004, in one of these cases, a
jury in a Florida state court action awarded compensatory
damages of $0.5 million against Liggett. In addition,
plaintiffs counsel was awarded legal fees of
$0.8 million. Liggett has appealed the verdict. In February
2005, in another of these cases, a state court jury in Florida
returned a verdict in favor of Liggett. The plaintiffs
post-trial motion seeking a new trial is pending. These cases
are referred to herein as though commenced against Liggett
(without regard to whether such cases were actually commenced
against Liggett or against Brooke Group Holding, our
predecessor, and a wholly-owned subsidiary of VGR Holding). The
plaintiffs allegations of liability in those cases in
which individuals seek recovery for injuries allegedly caused by
cigarette smoking are based on various theories of recovery,
including negligence, gross negligence, breach of special duty,
strict liability, fraud, misrepresentation, design defect,
failure to warn, breach of express and implied warranties,
conspiracy, aiding and abetting, concert of action, unjust
enrichment, common law public nuisance, property damage,
invasion of privacy, mental anguish, emotional distress,
disability, shock, indemnity and violations of deceptive trade
practice laws, the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act (RICO), state racketeering
statutes and antitrust statutes. In many of these cases, in
addition to compensatory damages, plaintiffs also seek other
forms of relief including treble/multiple damages, medical
monitoring, disgorgement of profits and punitive damages.
Defenses raised by defendants in these cases include lack of
proximate cause, assumption of the risk, comparative fault
and/or contributory negligence, lack of design defect, statutes
of limitations, equitable defenses such as unclean
hands and lack of benefit, failure to state a claim and
federal preemption.
The claims asserted in the health care cost recovery actions
vary. In most of these cases, plaintiffs assert the equitable
claim that the tobacco industry was unjustly
enriched by plaintiffs payment of health care costs
allegedly attributable to smoking and seek reimbursement of
those costs. Other claims made by some but not all plaintiffs
include the equitable claim of indemnity, common law claims of
negligence, strict liability, breach of express and implied
warranty, breach of special duty, fraud, negligent
misrepresentation, conspiracy, public nuisance, claims under
state and federal statutes governing consumer fraud, antitrust,
deceptive trade practices and false advertising, and claims
under RICO.
In September 1999, the United States government commenced
litigation against Liggett and the other major tobacco companies
in the United States District Court for the District of
Columbia. The action seeks to recover an unspecified amount of
health care costs paid for and furnished, and to be paid for and
furnished, by the federal government for lung cancer, heart
disease, emphysema and other smoking-related illnesses allegedly
caused by the fraudulent and tortious conduct of defendants, to
restrain defendants and co-conspirators from engaging in fraud
and other unlawful conduct in the future, and to compel
defendants to disgorge the proceeds of their unlawful conduct.
The complaint alleges that such costs total more than
$20 billion annually. The action asserts claims under three
federal statutes: the Medical Care Recovery Act, the Medicare
Secondary Payer provisions of the Social Security Act and RICO.
In September 2000, the court dismissed the governments
claims based on the Medical Care Recovery Act and the Medicare
Secondary Payor provisions, reaffirming its decision in July
2001. In the September 2000 ruling, the court also determined
not to dismiss the governments RICO claims, under which
the government continues to seek
15
court relief to restrain the defendant tobacco companies from
allegedly engaging in fraud and other unlawful conduct and to
compel disgorgement. In a January 2003 filing with the court,
the government alleged that disgorgement by defendants of
approximately $289 billion is an appropriate remedy in the
case. In April 2004, the court denied Liggetts motion to
be dismissed from the case. Trial of the case began in September
2004 and is proceeding. In February 2005, the United States
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia upheld the
defendants motion for summary judgment to dismiss the
governments disgorgement claim, ruling that disgorgement
is not an available remedy in a civil RICO action. The
government has stated that it intends to appeal.
In June 2001, the United States Attorney General assembled a
team of three Department of Justice lawyers to work on a
possible settlement of the federal lawsuit. The government
lawyers met with representatives of the tobacco industry,
including Liggett, in July 2001. No settlement was reached.
Approximately 38 purported state and federal class action
complaints were filed against the cigarette manufacturers,
including Liggett, for alleged antitrust violations. The actions
allege that the cigarette manufacturers have engaged in a
nationwide and international conspiracy to fix the price of
cigarettes in violation of state and federal antitrust laws.
Plaintiffs allege that defendants price-fixing conspiracy
raised the price of cigarettes above a competitive level.
Plaintiffs in the 31 state actions purport to represent classes
of indirect purchasers of cigarettes in 16 states; plaintiffs in
the seven federal actions purport to represent a nationwide
class of wholesalers who purchased cigarettes directly from the
defendants. The federal class actions were consolidated and, in
July 2000, plaintiffs filed a single consolidated complaint that
did not name Liggett as a defendant, although Liggett complied
with discovery requests. In July 2002, the court granted
defendants motion for summary judgment in the consolidated
federal cases, which decision was affirmed on appeal by the
United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. All
state court cases on behalf of indirect purchasers have been
dismissed, except for two cases pending in Kansas and New
Mexico. A Kansas state court, in the case of Smith v. Philip
Morris Companies Inc., et al., granted class certification
in November 2001. In April 2003, plaintiffs motion for
class certification was granted in Romero v. Philip Morris
Companies Inc., a case pending in New Mexico state court. In
February 2005, the New Mexico Supreme Court affirmed the trial
courts certification order. Liggett is one of the
defendants in the Kansas and New Mexico cases.
In 1996, 1997 and 1998, Brooke Group Holding and Liggett entered
into settlements of smoking-related litigation with the
Attorneys General of 45 states and territories. The settlements
released Brooke Group Holding and Liggett from all
smoking-related claims, including claims for health care cost
reimbursement and claims concerning sales of cigarettes to
minors.
In November 1998, Philip Morris, RJR Tobacco, Brown &
Williamson, Lorillard and Liggett entered into the Master
Settlement Agreement with 46 states, the District of Columbia,
Puerto Rico, Guam, the United States Virgin Islands, American
Samoa and the Northern Mariana Islands to settle the asserted
and unasserted health care cost recovery and certain other
claims of those settling jurisdictions. As described above,
Brooke Group Holding and Liggett had previous settlements with a
number of these settling states. The Master Settlement Agreement
received final judicial approval in each of the 52 settling
jurisdictions.
Liggett has no payment obligations under the Master Settlement
Agreement unless its market share exceeds a base share of 125%
of its 1997 market share, or approximately 1.65% of total
cigarettes sold in the United States. As a result of the
Medallion acquisition in April 2002, Vector Tobacco has no
payment obligations under the Master Settlement Agreement except
to the extent its market share exceeds a base amount of
approximately 0.28% of total cigarettes sold in the United
States. During 1999 and 2000, Liggetts market share did
not exceed the base amount. According to Management Science
Associates data, domestic shipments by Liggett and Vector
Tobacco accounted for 2.2% of the total cigarettes shipped in
the United States during 2001, 2.4% during 2002, 2.5% during
2003 and 2.3% during 2004. On April 15 of any year following a
year in which Liggetts and/or Vector Tobaccos market
shares exceed their base shares, Liggett and/or Vector Tobacco
will pay on each excess unit an amount equal (on a per-unit
basis) to that paid during such following year by the original
participating manufacturers under the annual and strategic
contribution payment provisions of the Master Settlement
Agreement, subject to applicable adjustments, offsets and
16
reductions. In March and April 2002, Liggett and Vector Tobacco
paid a total of $31.1 million for their 2001 Master
Settlement Agreement obligations. In March and April 2003,
Liggett and Vector Tobacco paid a total of $37.5 million
for their 2002 Master Settlement Agreement obligations. At that
time, funds were held back based on Liggetts and Vector
Tobaccos belief that their Master Settlement Agreement
payments for 2002 should be reduced as a result of market share
loss to non-participating manufacturers. In June 2003, Liggett
and Vector Tobacco reached a settlement with the jurisdictions
party to the Master Settlement Agreement whereby Liggett and
Vector Tobacco agreed to pay $2.5 million in April 2004 to
resolve these claims. In April 2004, Liggett and Vector Tobacco
paid a total of $50.3 million for their 2003 Master
Settlement Agreement obligations. Liggett and Vector Tobacco
have expensed $23.3 million for their estimated Master
Settlement Agreement obligations for 2004 as part of cost of
goods sold. Under the annual and strategic contribution payment
provisions of the Master Settlement Agreement, the original
participating manufacturers (and Liggett and Vector Tobacco to
the extent their market shares exceed their base shares) are
required to pay the following annual amounts (subject to certain
adjustments):
|
|
|
|
|
Year |
|
Amount | |
|
|
| |
2005 2007
|
|
$ |
8.0 billion |
|
2008 2017
|
|
$ |
8.1 billion |
|
2018 and each year thereafter
|
|
$ |
9.0 billion |
|
These annual payments will be allocated based on relative unit
volume of domestic cigarette shipments. The payment obligations
under the Master Settlement Agreement are the several, and not
joint, obligations of each participating manufacturer and are
not the responsibility of any parent or affiliate of a
participating manufacturer.
Liggett has recently been notified that all Participating
Manufacturers payment obligations under the Master
Settlement Agreement, dating from the agreements execution
in late 1998, have been recalculated utilizing net unit amounts,
rather than gross unit amounts (which have been utilized since
1999). The change in the method of calculation could, among
other things, require additional payments by Liggett under the
Master Settlement Agreement of approximately $2 million per
year for the period 2001 through 2004, or a total of
approximately $8 million, and require Liggett to pay an
additional amount of approximately $2 million per year in
2005 and in future periods by lowering Liggetts market
share exemption under the Master Settlement Agreement.
Liggett has objected to this retroactive change, and intends to
challenge it by way of arbitration or court proceeding if it is
ultimately implemented. Liggett contends that the retroactive
change from utilizing gross unit amounts to net unit amounts is
impermissible for several reasons, including that:
|
|
|
|
|
utilization of net unit amounts is not required by the Master
Settlement Agreement (as reflected by, among other things, the
utilization of gross unit amounts for the past six years), |
|
|
|
such a change is not authorized without the consent of affected
parties to the Master Settlement Agreement, |
|
|
|
the Master Settlement Agreement provides for four-year time
limitation periods for revisiting calculations and
determinations, which precludes recalculating Liggetts
1997 Market Share (and thus, Liggetts market share
exemption), and |
|
|
|
Liggett and others have relied upon the calculations based on
gross unit amounts for the past six years. |
The Master Settlement Agreement replaces Liggetts prior
settlements with all states and territories except for Florida,
Mississippi, Texas and Minnesota. Each of these four states,
prior to the effective date of the Master Settlement Agreement,
negotiated and executed settlement agreements with each of the
other major tobacco companies, separate from those settlements
reached previously with Liggett. Liggetts agreements with
these states remain in force and effect, and Liggett made
various payments to these states during 1996, 1997 and 1998
under the agreements. These states settlement agreements
with Liggett contained most-favored nations
provisions, which could reduce Liggetts and Brooke Group
Holdings payment
17
obligations based on subsequent settlements or resolutions by
those states with certain other tobacco companies. Beginning in
1999, Liggett determined that based, on each of these four
states settlements or resolutions with United States
Tobacco Company, Liggetts payment obligations to those
states have been eliminated, except for a $100,000 a year
payment to Minnesota negotiated in 2003, to be paid any year
cigarettes manufactured by Liggett are sold in that state. With
respect to all non-economic obligations under the previous
settlements, both Brooke Group Holding and Liggett are entitled
to the most favorable provisions as between the Master
Settlement Agreement and each states respective settlement
with the other major tobacco companies. Therefore,
Liggetts non-economic obligations to all states and
territories are now defined by the Master Settlement Agreement.
In 2004, the Attorneys General for each of Florida, Mississippi
and Texas advised Liggett that they believed that Liggett has
failed to make all required payments under the settlement
agreements with these three states for the period 1998 through
2003 and that additional payments may be due for 2004 and
subsequent years. Liggett believes these allegations are without
merit, based, among other things, on the language of the
most-favored nations provisions of the settlements agreements.
In December 2004, the State of Florida offered to settle all
amounts allegedly owed by Liggett for the period through 2003
for the sum of $13.5 million. In November 2004, the State
of Mississippi offered to settle all amounts allegedly owed by
Liggett for the period through 2003 for the sum of
$6.5 million. In March 2005, the State of Florida
reaffirmed its December 2004 offer to settle and provided
Liggett with a 60 day notice to cure its purported default.
No amounts have been accrued in the accompanying financial
statements for any additional amounts that may be payable by
Liggett under the Master Settlement Agreement, due to the
recalculation of the Participating Manufacturers payment
obligations, or under the settlement agreements with these three
states. There can be no assurance that Liggett will prevail and
that Liggett will not be required to make additional material
payments under the Master Settlement Agreement and the
settlement agreements with these three states, which payments
could adversely affect our consolidated financial position,
results of operations or cash flows.
Cigarette manufacturers that have not signed the Master
Settlement Agreement (non-participating
manufacturers) are required by law to make escrow deposits
in each settling state where they sell cigarettes. The amount of
escrow deposit is based on the number of cigarettes the
non-participating manufacturer sells in the settling state. The
escrow deposits are intended as a source of funds to pay
potential future judgments against the non-participating
manufacturers for smoking-related healthcare costs. Forty-three
states have passed, and various states are considering,
legislation intended to prevent non-participating manufacturers
from evading their escrow deposit obligations. Under this
legislation, distributors are prohibited from selling or
applying excise tax stamps to any cigarette brand that is not on
a state-approved list. In order for a brand to be on the
state-approved list, the manufacturer must be a compliant party
to the Master Settlement Agreement, or must be a
non-participating manufacturer that has made all required escrow
deposits. Failure to make escrow deposits in a settling state
could result in the loss of a non-participating
manufacturers ability to sell tobacco products in that
state. Additionally, 39 states have enacted, and several other
states have pending, legislation, known as an allocable
share amendment, that is designed to correct a loophole in
the settling states escrow statutes. The loophole allows
many non-participating manufacturers to obtain a refund of
monies deposited into escrow, and thereby reduce, in many cases
substantially, the amounts they deposit into escrow.
There is a suit pending against New York state officials, in
which importers of cigarettes allege that the Master Settlement
Agreement and certain New York statutes enacted in connection
with the Master Settlement Agreement violate federal antitrust
law. In September 2004, the court denied plaintiffs motion
to preliminarily enjoin the Master Settlement Agreement and
certain related New York statutes, but the court issued a
preliminary injunction against the allocable share
provision of the New York escrow statute. Plaintiffs have
appealed the trial courts September 2004 order to the
extent that it denied their request for a preliminary
injunction. Challenges to the allocable share
amendments in Kentucky, Ohio and Tennessee are pending in those
states. Courts in Idaho and Louisiana recently dismissed
challenges to the allocable share amendments in
those states. Liggett is not a defendant in either of these
cases.
18
On August 30, 2004, we announced that Liggett and Vector
Tobacco had notified the Attorneys General of 46 states that
they intend to initiate proceedings against the Attorneys
General for violating the terms of the Master Settlement
Agreement. Our subsidiaries allege that the Attorneys General
violated their rights and the Master Settlement Agreement by
extending unauthorized favorable financial terms to Miami-based
Vibo Corporation d/b/a/ General Tobacco when, on August 19,
2004, the Attorneys General entered into an agreement with
General Tobacco allowing it to become a subsequent participating
manufacturer under the Master Settlement Agreement. General
Tobacco imports discount cigarettes manufactured in Colombia,
South America.
In the notice sent to the Attorneys General, our subsidiaries
indicate that they will seek to enforce the terms of the Master
Settlement Agreement, void the General Tobacco agreement and
enjoin the settling states and National Association of Attorneys
General from listing General Tobacco as a participating
manufacturer on their websites.
In May 1994, an action entitled Engle, et al. v. R.J. Reynolds
Tobacco Company, et al., Circuit Court, Eleventh Judicial
Circuit, Dade County, Florida, was filed against Liggett and
others. The class consists of all Florida residents and
citizens, and their survivors, who have suffered, presently
suffer or have died from diseases and medical conditions caused
by their addiction to cigarettes that contain nicotine. Phase I
of the trial commenced in July 1998 and in July 1999, the jury
returned the Phase I verdict. The Phase I verdict concerned
certain issues determined by the trial court to be
common to the causes of action of the plaintiff
class. Among other things, the jury found that: smoking
cigarettes causes 20 diseases or medical conditions, cigarettes
are addictive or dependence producing, defective and
unreasonably dangerous, defendants made materially false
statements with the intention of misleading smokers, defendants
concealed or omitted material information concerning the health
effects and/or the addictive nature of smoking cigarettes and
agreed to misrepresent and conceal the health effects and/or the
addictive nature of smoking cigarettes, and defendants were
negligent and engaged in extreme and outrageous conduct or acted
with reckless disregard with the intent to inflict emotional
distress. The jury also found that defendants conduct
rose to a level that would permit a potential award or
entitlement to punitive damages. The court decided that
Phase II of the trial, which commenced November 1999, would be a
causation and damages trial for three of the class
representatives and a punitive damages trial on a class-wide
basis, before the same jury that returned the verdict in Phase
I. Phase III of the trial was to be conducted before separate
juries to address absent class members claims, including
issues of specific causation and other individual issues
regarding entitlement to compensatory damages. In April 2000,
the jury awarded compensatory damages of $12.7 million to
the three plaintiffs, to be reduced in proportion to the
respective plaintiffs fault. The jury also decided that
the claim of one of the plaintiffs, who was awarded compensatory
damages of $5.8 million, was not timely filed. In July
2000, the jury awarded approximately $145 billion in the
punitive damages portion of Phase II against all defendants
including $790 million against Liggett. The court entered a
final order of judgment against the defendants in November 2000.
The courts final judgment, which provided for interest at
the rate of 10% per year on the jurys award, also denied
various post-trial motions, including a motion for new trial and
a motion seeking reduction of the punitive damages award.
Liggett appealed the courts order.
In May 2003, Floridas Third District Court of Appeals
decertified the Engle class and set aside the jurys
decision in the case against Liggett and the other cigarette
makers, including the $145 billion punitive damages award.
The intermediate appellate court ruled that there were multiple
legal bases why the class action trial, including the punitive
damages award, could not be sustained. The court found that the
class failed to meet the legal requirements for class
certification and that class members needed to pursue their
claims on an individualized basis. The court also ruled that the
trial plan violated Florida law and the appellate courts
1996 certification decision, and was unconstitutional. The court
further found that the proceedings were irretrievably tainted by
class counsels misconduct and that the punitive damages
award was bankrupting under Florida law.
In October 2003, the Third District Court of Appeals denied
class counsels motions seeking, among other things, a
rehearing by the court. Class counsel filed a motion with the
Florida Supreme Court to invoke discretionary review on the
basis that the Third District Court of Appeals decision
construes the due process provisions of the state and federal
constitutions and conflicts with other appellate and supreme
court decisions.
19
In May 2004, the Florida Supreme Court agreed to review the
case. Oral argument was held in November 2004. If the Third
District Courts ruling is not upheld on further appeal, it
will have a material adverse effect on us.
Management is not able to predict the outcome of the litigation
pending against Brooke Group Holding or Liggett. Litigation is
subject to many uncertainties. In May 2003, a Florida
intermediate appellate court overturned a $790 million
punitive damages award against Liggett and decertified the
Engle smoking and health class action. In May 2004, the
Florida Supreme Court agreed to review the case. Oral argument
was held in November 2004. If the intermediate appellate
courts ruling is not upheld on further appeal, it will
have a material adverse effect on us. In November 2000, Liggett
filed the $3.45 million bond required under the bonding
statute enacted in 2000 by the Florida legislature which limits
the size of any bond required, pending appeal, to stay execution
of a punitive damages verdict. In May 2001, Liggett reached an
agreement with the class in the Engle case, which
provided assurance to Liggett that the stay of execution, in
effect pursuant to the Florida bonding statute, would not be
lifted or limited at any point until completion of all appeals,
including to the United States Supreme Court. As required by the
agreement, Liggett paid $6.27 million into an escrow
account to be held for the benefit of the Engle class,
and released, along with Liggetts existing
$3.45 million statutory bond, to the court for the benefit
of the class upon completion of the appeals process, regardless
of the outcome of the appeal. As a result, we recorded a
$9.7 million pre-tax charge to the consolidated statement
of operations for the first quarter of 2001. In June 2002, the
jury in an individual case brought under the third phase of the
Engle case awarded $37.5 million (subsequently
reduced by the court to $25.1 million) of compensatory
damages against Liggett and two other defendants and found
Liggett 50% responsible for the damages. The verdict, which was
subject to the outcome of the Engle appeal, has been
overturned as a result of the appellate courts ruling
discussed above. In April 2004, a jury in a Florida state court
action awarded compensatory damages of approximately
$0.5 million against Liggett in an individual action. In
addition, plaintiffs counsel was awarded legal fees of
$0.8 million. Liggett has appealed the verdict. It is
possible that additional cases could be decided unfavorably and
that there could be further adverse developments in the Engle
case. Liggett may enter into discussions in an attempt to
settle particular cases if it believes it is appropriate to do
so. Management cannot predict the cash requirements related to
any future settlements and judgments, including cash required to
bond any appeals, and there is a risk that those requirements
will not be able to be met. An unfavorable outcome of a pending
smoking and health case could encourage the commencement of
additional similar litigation. Management is unable to make a
meaningful estimate with respect to the amount or range of loss
that could result from an unfavorable outcome of the cases
pending against Brooke Group Holding or Liggett or the costs of
defending such cases. The complaints filed in these cases rarely
detail alleged damages. Typically, the claims set forth in an
individuals complaint against the tobacco industry pray
for money damages in an amount to be determined by a jury, plus
punitive damages and costs. These damage claims are typically
stated as being for the minimum necessary to invoke the
jurisdiction of the court.
It is possible that our consolidated financial position, results
of operations or cash flows could be materially adversely
affected by an unfavorable outcome in any such smoking-related
litigation.
Liggetts and Vector Tobaccos management is unaware
of any material environmental conditions affecting its existing
facilities. Liggetts and Vector Tobaccos management
believes that current operations are conducted in accordance
with all environmental laws and regulations. Compliance with
federal, state and local provisions regulating the discharge of
materials into the environment, or otherwise relating to the
protection of the environment, have not had a material effect on
the capital expenditures, earnings or competitive position of
Liggett or Vector Tobacco.
Liggetts management believes that it is in compliance in
all material respects with the laws regulating cigarette
manufacturers.
See Note 15 to our consolidated financial statements, which
contain a description of legislation, regulation and litigation
and of the Master Settlement Agreement and Brooke Group
Holdings and Liggetts other settlements.
20
Liggett-Ducat Ltd.
In August 2000, Brooke (Overseas) Ltd., a wholly-owned
subsidiary of VGR Holding, completed the sale of all of the
membership interests of Western Tobacco Investments LLC to
Gallaher Overseas (Holdings) Ltd. Brooke (Overseas) held its
99.9% equity interest in Liggett-Ducat Ltd., a Russian joint
stock company, through its subsidiary Western Tobacco
Investments LLC. Liggett-Ducat, one of Russias leading
cigarette producers since 1892, produced or had rights to
produce 26 different brands of cigarettes, including Russian
brands such as PEGAS, PRIMA, NOVOSTI and BELOMORKANAL, and
American blend cigarettes under the names DUKAT and LD.
The purchase price for the sale consisted of $334.1 million
in cash and $64.4 million in assumed debt and capital
commitments. The proceeds generated from the sale were divided
among Brooke (Overseas) and Western Realty Development LLC, a
joint venture of New Valley and Apollo Real Estate Investment
Fund III, L.P., in accordance with the terms of the
participating loan. Of the net cash proceeds from the
transaction, Brooke (Overseas) received $197.1 million, New
Valley received $57.2 million and Apollo received
$68.3 million. We recorded a gain of $161 million
(including our share of New Valleys gain), net of income
taxes and minority interests, in connection with the sale in
2000.
New Valley Corporation
New Valley, a Delaware corporation, is engaged in the real
estate business and is seeking to acquire additional operating
companies. New Valley owns a 50% interest in Douglas Elliman
Realty, LLC, which operates the largest residential brokerage
company in the New York City metropolitan area. New Valley also
holds, through its New Valley Realty Division, a 50% interest in
the Sheraton Keauhou Bay Resort & Spa in Kailua-Kona,
Hawaii. In February 2005, New Valley completed the sale of its
two commercial office buildings in Princeton New Jersey. New
Valley (NASDAQ: NVAL) is registered under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and files periodic reports and other
information with the SEC.
As of March 14, 2005, VGR Holding holds, either directly or
indirectly through VGR Holdings wholly-owned subsidiary,
New Valley Holdings, Inc., approximately 55.1% of the common
shares of New Valley.
New Valley was originally organized under the laws of New York
in 1851 and operated for many years under the name Western
Union Corporation. In 1991, bankruptcy proceedings were
commenced against New Valley. In January 1995, New Valley
emerged from bankruptcy. As part of the plan of reorganization,
New Valley sold the Western Union money transfer and messaging
services businesses and all allowed claims in the bankruptcy
were paid in full.
In October 1999, New Valleys board of directors authorized
the repurchase of up to 2,000,000 common shares from time to
time in the open market or in privately negotiated transactions.
As of December 31, 2004, New Valley had repurchased
1,229,515 shares for approximately $4.9 million.
Business Strategy. In December 2001, New Valley completed
the distribution to its stockholders of its shares in Ladenburg
Thalmann Financial Services Inc., its former majority-owned
subsidiary engaged in the investment banking and brokerage
business. Following the distribution of the Ladenburg Thalmann
Financial Services shares and the disposition of New
Valleys remaining assets in Russia in December 2001 and
April 2002, New Valley has been engaged in the real estate
business and holds a significant amount of cash and other
investments. The business strategy of New Valley is to continue
to operate its real estate business, to acquire additional real
estate properties and to acquire operating companies through
merger, purchase of assets, stock acquisition or other means, or
to acquire control of operating companies through one of such
means. New Valley may also seek from time to time to dispose of
such businesses and properties when favorable market conditions
exist. New Valleys cash and investments (aggregating
approximately $78.5 million at December 31, 2004 and
$101.5 million at March 11, 2005) are available for
general corporate purposes, including for acquisition purposes.
As a result of the sale of the office buildings in February
2005, New Valleys real estate leasing operations, which
were the primary source of New Valleys revenues in 2003
and 2004, have been treated as discontinued operations in the
accompanying consolidated financial statements.
21
Douglas Elliman Realty, LLC.
During 2000 and 2001, New Valley acquired for approximately
$1.7 million a 37.2% ownership interest in B&H
Associates of NY, which conducts business as Prudential Douglas
Elliman Real Estate, formerly known as Prudential Long Island
Realty, the largest independently owned and operated real estate
brokerage company on Long Island, and a minority interest in an
affiliated mortgage company, Preferred Empire Mortgage Company.
In December 2002, New Valley and the other owners of Prudential
Douglas Elliman Real Estate contributed their interests in
Prudential Douglas Elliman Real Estate to Douglas Elliman
Realty, LLC, formerly known as Montauk Battery Realty, LLC, a
newly formed entity. New Valley acquired a 50% interest in
Douglas Elliman Realty as a result of an additional investment
of approximately $1.4 million by New Valley and the
redemption by Prudential Douglas Elliman Real Estate of various
ownership interests. As part of the transaction, Prudential
Douglas Elliman Real Estate renewed its franchise agreement with
The Prudential Real Estate Affiliates, Inc. for an additional
ten-year term. In October 2004, upon receipt of required
regulatory approvals, the former owners of Douglas Elliman
Realty contributed to Douglas Elliman Realty their interests in
the related mortgage company.
In March 2003, Douglas Elliman Realty purchased the New York
Citybased residential brokerage firm, Douglas Elliman,
LLC, formerly known as Insignia Douglas Elliman, and an
affiliated property management company, for $71.25 million.
With that acquisition, the combination of Prudential Douglas
Elliman Real Estate with Douglas Elliman has created the largest
residential brokerage company in the New York metropolitan area.
Upon closing of the acquisition, Douglas Elliman entered into a
ten-year franchise agreement with The Prudential Real Estate
Affiliates, Inc. New Valley invested an additional
$9.5 million in subordinated debt and equity of Douglas
Elliman Realty to help fund the acquisition. The subordinated
debt, which had a principal amount of $9.5 million, bears
interest at 12% per annum and is due in March 2013. As part of
the Douglas Elliman acquisition, Douglas Elliman Realty acquired
Douglas Ellimans affiliate, Residential Management Group
LLC, which conducts business as Douglas Elliman Property
Management and is the New York metropolitan areas largest
manager of rental, co-op and condominium housing.
New Valley accounts for its interest in Douglas Elliman Realty
on the equity method. New Valley recorded income of
$11.6 million in 2004, $1.2 million in 2003 and
$0.6 million in 2002 associated with Douglas Elliman
Realty. New Valleys equity income from Douglas Elliman
Realty includes interest earned by New Valley on the
subordinated debt and 44% of the mortgage companys results
from operations.
Douglas Elliman Realty is engaged in the real estate brokerage
business through its subsidiaries Douglas Elliman and Prudential
Douglas Elliman Real Estate. The two brokerage companies have 54
offices with more than 2,800 real estate agents in the
metropolitan New York area. The companies achieved combined
sales of approximately $10 billion of real estate in 2004
and approximately $6.8 billion of real estate in 2003. In
2003, Douglas Elliman Realty was ranked as the ninth largest
residential brokerage company in the United States based on
closed sales volume by the Real Trends broker survey.
Douglas Elliman Realty had revenues of $286.8 million in
2004, $179.9 million in 2003 and $59.3 million in 2002.
Douglas Elliman was founded in 1911 and has grown to be one of
Manhattans leading residential brokers by specializing in
the highest end of the sales and rental marketplaces. It has 12
New York City offices, with more than 1,100 real estate agents,
and had sales volume of approximately $5.9 billion of real
estate in 2004 and approximately $4 billion in 2003.
Prudential Douglas Elliman Real Estate is headquartered in
Huntington, New York and is the largest residential brokerage
company on Long Island with 42 offices and more than 1,700 real
estate agents. During 2004, Prudential Douglas Elliman Real
Estate closed approximately 7,975 transactions, representing
sales volume of approximately $4.2 billion of real estate.
This compared to approximately 6,955 transactions closed in
2003, representing approximately $2.8 billion of real
estate. Prudential Douglas Elliman Real Estate serves
approximately 250 communities from Manhattan to Montauk.
22
New
Valley Realty Division
Office Buildings. On December 13, 2002, New Valley
completed the acquisition of two commercial office buildings in
Princeton, N.J. for an aggregate purchase price of
$54.3 million. The two adjacent buildings, located at 100
and 150 College Road West, were constructed in July 2000 and
June 2001 and have a total of approximately 225,000 square feet
of rentable space.
New Valley acquired a fee simple interest in each office
building (subject to certain rights of existing tenants) and in
the underlying land for each property. Space in the office
buildings was leased to commercial tenants and, as of
December 31, 2004, the office buildings were approximately
98% occupied.
To finance a portion of the purchase price for the office
buildings, on the closing date, New Valley borrowed
$40.5 million from HSBC Realty Credit Corporation (USA).
The loan had a term of four years, bore interest at a floating
rate of 2% above LIBOR, and was collateralized by a first
mortgage on the office buildings, as well as by an assignment of
leases and rents. Principal was amortized to the extent of
$53,635 per month during the term of the loan. The loan was
prepayable without penalty and was non-recourse against New
Valley, except for various specified environmental and related
matters, misapplications of tenant security deposits and
insurance and condemnation proceeds, and fraud or
misrepresentation by New Valley in connection with the
indebtedness.
In October 2004, New Valley entered into various extensions of
the leases at the office buildings. As a result of the
extensions, the average remaining lease term of tenants
increased to approximately eight years and the major tenant, a
leading drug company, increased the amount of space leased.
In February 2005, New Valley completed the sale of the two
office buildings for $71.5 million to an entity advised by
Falcon Real Estate Investment Company, L.P. The Company retired
the outstanding mortgage ($39.2 million principal amount at
December 31, 2004) at closing with the proceeds of the
sale. As a result of the sale, New Valleys real estate
leasing operations have been treated as discontinued operations
in the accompanying consolidated financial statements.
Hawaiian Hotel. In July 2001, Koa Investors, LLC, an
entity owned by New Valley, developer Brickman Associates and
other investors, acquired the leasehold interests in the former
Kona Surf Hotel in Kailua-Kona, Hawaii in a foreclosure
proceeding. New Valley, which holds a 50% interest in Koa
Investors, had invested $11.9 million in the project and
had committed to make additional investments of up to an
aggregate of $0.6 million as of December 31, 2004. New
Valley accounts for its investment in Koa Investors under the
equity method and recorded losses of $1.8 million in 2004,
$0.3 million in 2003 and $1.3 million in 2002
associated with the Kona Surf Hotel. Koa Investors losses
in 2004 primarily represented losses from operations and
management fees. Koa Investors losses in 2003 primarily
represented management fees. Koa Investors losses in 2002
primarily represented management fees and the loss of a deposit
on an adjoining golf course, which it determined not to
purchase. Koa Investors capitalized substantially all costs
related to the acquisition and development of the property
during the construction phase, which ceased in connection with
the opening of the hotel in the fourth quarter of 2004.
The hotel is located on a 20-acre tract, which is leased under
two ground leases with Kamehameha Schools, the largest private
land owner in Hawaii. In December 2002, Koa Investors and
Kamehameha amended the leases to provide for significant rent
abatements over the next ten years and extended the remaining
term of the leases from 33 years to 65 years. In
addition, Kamehameha granted Koa Investors various right of
first offer opportunities to develop adjoining resort sites.
A subsidiary of Koa Investors has entered into an agreement with
Sheraton Operating Corporation, a subsidiary of Starwood Hotels
and Resorts Worldwide, Inc., for Sheraton to manage the hotel.
Following a major renovation, the property reopened in the
fourth quarter 2004 as the Sheraton Keauhou Bay Resort &
Spa, a four star family resort with approximately 525 rooms. The
renovation of the property includes comprehensive room
enhancements, construction of a fresh water 13,000 square foot
fantasy pool, lobby and entrance improvements, a new gym and
spa, retail stores and new restaurants. A 10,000 square foot
convention center, wedding chapel and other revenue producing
amenities are also being restored. In April 2004, a subsidiary
of Koa Investors closed on a $57 million construction loan
to fund the renovation.
23
Sales of Shopping Centers. In May 2002, New Valley
disposed of its remaining shopping center in Kanawha, West
Virginia and recorded a gain of $0.6 million for the year
ended December 31, 2002, which represented the shopping
centers negative book value, in connection with the
disposal. No proceeds were received in the disposal.
Russian Real Estate
BrookeMil Ltd. In January 1997, New Valley purchased
BrookeMil Ltd. from Brooke (Overseas) Ltd., an indirect
wholly-owned subsidiary of ours. BrookeMil, which was engaged in
the real estate development business in Moscow, Russia, was the
developer of a three-phase complex on 2.2 acres of land in
downtown Moscow, for which it had a 49-year lease. In 1993, the
first phase of the project, Ducat Place I, a 46,500 sq. ft.
Class-A office building, was successfully built and leased. In
April 1997, BrookeMil sold Ducat Place I to one of its tenants,
Citibank. In 1997, BrookeMil completed construction of Ducat
Place II, a premier 150,000 sq. ft. office building. Ducat Place
II was leased to a number of leading international companies and
was one of the leading modern office buildings in Moscow due to
its design and full range of amenities. The third phase, Ducat
Place III, had been planned as an office tower. BrookeMil was
also engaged in the acquisition and preliminary development of
the Kremlin sites in Moscow.
In March 2005, we, along with New Valley and its directors,
settled a stockholder derivative suit that alleged, among other
things, that New Valley paid excessive consideration for
BrookeMil in 1997. As part of the settlement, which is subject
to court approval, Vector Group will pay New Valley
$7 million, and New Valley will pay legal fees and expenses
of up to $2.15 million. See Note 15 to our
consolidated financial statements.
Western Realty Development. In February 1998, New Valley
and Apollo Real Estate Investment Fund III, L.P. organized
Western Realty Development LLC to make real estate investments
in Russia. New Valley contributed the real estate assets of
BrookeMil, including the Ducat Place II office building and the
adjoining site for the proposed development of Ducat Place III,
to Western Realty Development, and Apollo contributed
$73.3 million, including the investment in Western Realty
Repin LLC discussed below.
Western Realty Development made a $30 million participating
loan to Western Tobacco Investments LLC which held the interest
of Brooke (Overseas) in Liggett-Ducat Ltd., which was engaged in
the tobacco business in Russia. In August 2000, Western Tobacco
Investments was sold to Gallaher Group Plc and the proceeds were
divided between us and Western Realty Development in accordance
with the terms of the participating loan, which was terminated
at the closing. Through their investments in Western Realty
Development, New Valley received $57.2 million in cash
proceeds from the sale and Apollo received $68.3 million.
New Valley recorded a gain of $52.5 million in connection
with the transaction in 2000.
In December 2001, Western Realty Development sold to Andante
Limited, a Bermuda company, all of its interests in Ducat Place
II and the adjoining Ducat Place III site. The purchase price
for the sale was approximately $42 million including the
assumption of mortgage debt and payables. Of the net cash
proceeds from the sale, New Valley received approximately
$22 million, and Apollo received approximately
$9.5 million. New Valley recorded a loss of approximately
$21.8 million in connection with the sale in 2001.
Western Realty Repin. In June 1998, New Valley and Apollo
organized Western Realty Repin to finance the acquisition and
preliminary development by BrookeMil of two adjoining sites
totaling 10.25 acres located in Moscow across the river from the
Kremlin. The Kremlin sites were planned for development as a
residential and hotel complex.
In April 2002, New Valley sold the shares of BrookeMil for
approximately $22 million before closing expenses.
BrookeMil owned the two Kremlin sites in Moscow, which were New
Valleys remaining real estate holdings in Russia. Under
the terms of the Western Realty Repin participating loan to
BrookeMil, New Valley received approximately $7.5 million
of the net proceeds from the sale and Apollo received
approximately $12.5 million of the proceeds. New Valley
recorded a gain on the sale of real estate of approximately
$8.5 million for the year ended December 31, 2002.
24
Former
Broker-Dealer Operations
In May 1995, New Valley acquired Ladenburg Thalmann & Co.
Inc. for $25.8 million, net of cash acquired. Ladenburg
Thalmann & Co. is a full service broker-dealer, which has
been a member of the New York Stock Exchange since 1879. In
December 1999, New Valley sold 19.9% of Ladenburg Thalmann &
Co. to Berliner Effektengesellschaft AG, a German public
financial holding company. New Valley received
$10.2 million in cash and Berliner shares valued in
accordance with the purchase agreement.
On May 7, 2001, GBI Capital Management Corp. acquired all
of the outstanding common stock of Ladenburg Thalmann & Co.,
and the name of GBI was changed to Ladenburg Thalmann Financial
Services Inc. New Valley received 18,598,098 shares,
$8.01 million in cash and $8.01 million principal
amount of senior convertible notes due December 31, 2005.
The notes issued to New Valley bore interest at 7.5% per annum
and were convertible into shares of Ladenburg Thalmann Financial
Services common stock. Upon closing, New Valley also acquired an
additional 3,945,060 shares of Ladenburg Thalmann Financial
Services common stock from the former Chairman of Ladenburg
Thalmann Financial Services for $1.00 per share. To provide the
funds for the acquisition of the common stock of Ladenburg
Thalmann & Co., Ladenburg Thalmann Financial Services
borrowed $10 million from Frost-Nevada, Limited Partnership
and issued to Frost-Nevada $10 million principal amount of
8.5% senior convertible notes due December 31, 2005.
Following completion of the transactions, New Valley owned 53.6%
and 49.5% of the common stock of Ladenburg Thalmann Financial
Services, on a basic and fully diluted basis, respectively.
Ladenburg Thalmann Financial Services (AMEX: LTS) is registered
under the Securities Act of 1934 and files periodic reports and
other information with the SEC.
In December 2001, New Valley distributed its 22,543,158 shares
of Ladenburg Thalmann Financial Services common stock to holders
of New Valley common shares through a special dividend. At the
same time, we distributed the 12,694,929 shares of Ladenburg
Thalmann Financial Services common stock, that we received from
New Valley, to the holders of our common stock as a special
dividend. New Valley stockholders received 0.988 of a Ladenburg
Thalmann Financial Services share for each share of New Valley,
and our stockholders received 0.348 of a Ladenburg Thalmann
Financial Services share for each share of ours.
In 2002, Ladenburg Thalmann Financial Services borrowed a total
of $5 million from New Valley. The loans, which bear
interest at 1% above the prime rate, were due on the earlier of
December 31, 2003 or the completion of one or more equity
financings where Ladenburg Thalmann Financial Services received
at least $5 million in total proceeds. In November 2002,
New Valley agreed, in connection with a $3.5 million loan
to Ladenburg Thalmann Financial Services by an affiliate of its
clearing broker, to extend the maturity of its notes to
December 31, 2006 and to subordinate its notes to the
repayment of the loan from the clearing broker.
New Valley evaluated its ability to collect its notes receivable
and related interest from Ladenburg Thalmann Financial Services
at September 30, 2002. These notes receivable included the
$5 million of notes issued in 2002 and the
$8.01 million convertible note issued to New Valley in May
2001. Management determined, based on the then current trends in
the broker-dealer industry and Ladenburg Thalmann Financial
Services operating results and liquidity needs, that a
reserve for uncollectibility should be established against these
notes and interest receivable. As a result, New Valley recorded
a charge of $13.2 million in the third quarter of 2002.
In November 2004, New Valley entered into a debt conversion
agreement with Ladenburg Thalmann Financial Services and the
other remaining holder of the convertible notes. New Valley and
the other holder agreed to convert their notes, with an
aggregate principal amount of $18 million, together with
the accrued interest, into common stock of Ladenburg Thalmann
Financial Services. Pursuant to the debt conversion agreement,
the conversion price of the note held by New Valley was reduced
from the previous conversion price of approximately $2.08 to
$0.50 per share, and New Valley and the other holder each agreed
to purchase $5 million of Ladenburg Thalmann Financial
Services common stock at $0.45 per share.
The note conversion transaction was approved by the Ladenburg
Thalmann Financial Services shareholders in January 2005 and
closed in March 2005. At the closing, New Valleys note,
representing approximately $9.9 million of principal and
accrued interest, was converted into 19,876,358 shares of
Ladenburg Thalmann
25
Financial Services common stock and New Valley purchased
11,111,111 Ladenburg Thalmann Financial Services shares.
Ladenburg Thalmann Financial Services borrowed
$1.75 million from New Valley in 2004 and an additional
$1.75 million in the first quarter 2005. At the closing of
the note conversion agreement, New Valley delivered these notes
for cancellation as partial payment for its purchase of
Ladenburg Thalmann Financial Services common stock.
On March 4, 2005, New Valley announced that it would
distribute the 19,876,358 shares of Ladenburg Thalmann Financial
Services common stock it acquired from the conversion of the
notes to holders of New Valley common shares through a special
dividend. We announced that we would, in turn, distribute the
10,947,448 shares of Ladenburg Thalmann Financial Services
common stock that we would receive from New Valley to the
holders of our common stock as a special dividend. The special
dividends will be accomplished through pro rata distributions of
the Ladenburg Thalmann Financial Services shares to be paid on
March 30, 2005 to holders of record as of March 18,
2005. New Valley stockholders will receive approximately 0.852
of a Ladenburg Thalmann Financial Services share for each share
of New Valley, and our stockholders will receive approximately
0.24 of a Ladenburg Thalmann Financial Services share for each
share of ours.
Following the distribution, New Valley will continue to hold the
11,111,111 shares of Ladenburg Thalmann Financial Services
common stock (approximately 9.2% of the outstanding shares), the
$5 million of Ladenburg Thalmann Financial Services
notes due December 31, 2006 and a warrant to purchase
100,000 shares of its common stock at $1.00 per share.
Howard M. Lorber and Richard J. Lampen, executive officers and
directors of New Valley, and Henry C. Beinstein, a director of
New Valley and Vector Group, also serve as directors of
Ladenburg Thalmann Financial Services, and Bennett S. LeBow, the
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of New Valley, served as a
director of Ladenburg Thalmann Financial Services until
September 2003. Victor M. Rivas, a director of New Valley,
served as President and CEO of Ladenburg Thalmann Financial
Services until his retirement on March 31, 2004 as an
officer and director of Ladenburg Thalmann Financial Services.
J. Bryant Kirkland III, New Valleys Vice President,
Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer, served as Chief Financial
Officer of Ladenburg Thalmann Financial Services from June 2001
to October 2002. In 2002, Ladenburg Thalmann Financial Services
accrued compensation of $0.1 million for Mr. Kirkland
in connection with his services, which was paid in four
quarterly installments commencing April 1, 2003.
Messrs. LeBow and Lorber serve as executive officers and
directors, and Mr. Lampen serves as an executive officer,
of Vector Group, New Valleys principal stockholder, and
Robert J. Eide and Jeffrey S. Podell, directors of Ladenburg
Thalmann Financial Services, serve as directors of Vector Group.
As of December 31, 2004, long-term investments consisted
primarily of investments in limited partnerships and limited
liability companies of $2.4 million. New Valley has
committed to make an additional investment in one of these
limited partnerships of up to $0.7 million.
Employees
At December 31, 2004, we had approximately 456 employees,
of whom approximately 278 were employed at Liggetts Mebane
facility, approximately 39 were employed by Vector Tobacco and
Vector Research and approximately 119 were employed by Liggett
Vector Brands. Approximately 46% of our employees are hourly
employees who are represented by unions. We have not experienced
any significant work stoppages since 1977, and we believe that
relations with our employees and their unions are satisfactory.
Available Information
Our website address is www.vectorgroupltd.com. We make available
free of charge on the Investor Relations section of our website
(http://vectorgroupltd.com/invest.asp) our Annual Report on
Form 10-K, Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q, Current
Reports on Form 8-K and all amendments to those reports as
soon as reasonably practicable after such material is
electronically filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission. We also make available through our website other
reports filed with the SEC under the
26
Exchange Act, including our proxy statements and reports filed
by officers and directors under Section 16(a) of that Act.
Copies of our Code of Business Conduct and Ethics, Corporate
Governance Guidelines, Audit Committee charter, Compensation
Committee charter and Corporate Governance and Nominating
Committee charter have been posted on the Investor Relations
section of our website and are also available in print to any
shareholder who requests it. We do not intend for information
contained in our website to be part of this Annual Report on
Form 10-K.
27
RISK FACTORS
We and our subsidiaries have a substantial amount of
indebtedness.
We and our subsidiaries have significant indebtedness and debt
service obligations. At December 31, 2004, we and our
subsidiaries had total outstanding indebtedness (including
embedded derivative liability and beneficial conversion feature
related to convertible notes) of $298.9 million. In
addition, subject to the terms of any future agreements, we and
our subsidiaries will be able to incur additional indebtedness
in the future. There is a risk that we will not be able to
generate sufficient funds to repay our debt. If we cannot
service our fixed charges, it would have a material adverse
effect on our business and results of operations.
We are a holding company and depend on cash payments from our
subsidiaries, which are subject to contractual and other
restrictions, in order to service our debt and to pay dividends
on our common stock.
We are a holding company and have no operations of our own. We
hold our interests in our various businesses through our
wholly-owned subsidiary, VGR Holding Inc. In addition to our own
cash resources, our ability to pay interest on our convertible
notes and to pay dividends on our common stock depends on the
ability of VGR Holding to make cash available to us. VGR
Holdings ability to pay dividends to us depends primarily
on the ability of Liggett, its wholly-owned subsidiary, and New
Valley, in which we indirectly hold an approximately 55.1%
interest, to generate cash and make it available to VGR Holding.
Liggetts revolving credit agreement permits Liggett to pay
cash dividends to VGR Holding only if Liggetts borrowing
availability exceeds $5 million for the 30 days prior
to payment of the dividend and immediately after giving effect
to the dividend, and so long as no event of default has occurred
under the agreement, including Liggetts compliance with
the covenants in the credit facility, including an adjusted net
worth and working capital requirement.
As the controlling stockholder of New Valley, we must deal
fairly with New Valley, which may limit our ability to enter
into transactions with New Valley that result in the receipt of
cash from New Valley and to influence New Valleys dividend
policy. In addition, since we indirectly own only approximately
55.1% of the common shares of New Valley, a significant portion
of any cash and other assets distributed by New Valley will be
received by persons other than us and our subsidiaries.
Our receipt of cash payments, as dividends or otherwise, from
our subsidiaries is an important source of our liquidity and
capital resources. If we do not have sufficient cash resources
of our own and do not receive payments from our subsidiaries in
an amount sufficient to repay our debts and to pay dividends on
our common stock, we must obtain additional funds from other
sources. There is a risk that we will not be able to obtain
additional funds at all or on terms acceptable to us. Our
inability to service these obligations and to continue to pay
dividends on our common stock would significantly harm us and
the value of our common stock.
Our liquidity could be adversely affected if taxing
authorities prevail in their assertion that we incurred a tax
obligation in 1998 and 1999 in connection with the Philip Morris
brand transaction.
In connection with the 1998 and 1999 transaction with Philip
Morris Incorporated, in which a subsidiary of Liggett
contributed three of its premium cigarette brands to Trademarks
LLC, a newly-formed limited liability company, we recognized in
1999 a pre-tax gain of $294.1 million in our consolidated
financial statements and established a deferred tax liability of
$103.1 million relating to the gain. In such transaction,
Philip Morris acquired an option to purchase the remaining
interest in Trademarks for a 90-day period commencing in
December 2008, and we have an option to require Philip Morris to
purchase the remaining interest for a 90-day period commencing
in March 2010. Upon exercise of the options during either of the
90-day periods commencing in December 2008 or in March 2010, we
will be required to pay tax in the amount of the deferred tax
liability, which will be offset by the benefit of any deferred
tax assets, including any net operating losses, available to us
at that time. In connection with an examination of our 1998 and
1999 federal income tax returns, the Internal Revenue Service
issued to us in September 2003 a notice of proposed
28
adjustment. The notice asserts that, for tax reporting purposes,
the entire gain should have been recognized in 1998 and in 1999
in the additional amounts of $150 million and
$129.9 million, respectively, rather than upon the exercise
of the options during either of the 90-day periods commencing in
December 2008 or in March 2010. If the Internal Revenue Service
were to ultimately prevail with the proposed adjustment, it
would result in the potential acceleration of tax payments of
approximately $121 million, including interest, net of tax
benefits, through December 31, 2004. These amounts have
been previously recognized in our consolidated financial
statements as tax liabilities. In addition, we have filed a
protest with the Appeals Division of the Internal Revenue
Service. Although no payment is due with respect to these
matters during the appeal process, interest is accruing on the
disputed amounts.
There is a risk that the taxing authorities will ultimately
prevail in their assertion that we incurred a tax obligation
prior to the exercise dates of these options and we will be
required to make such tax payments prior to 2009 or 2010. If
that were to occur and any necessary financing were not
available to us, our liquidity could be materially adversely
affected, which in turn would materially adversely affect the
value of our common stock.
Liggett faces intense competition in the domestic tobacco
industry.
Liggett is considerably smaller and has fewer resources than its
major competitors and, as a result, has a more limited ability
to respond to market developments. Management Science Associates
data indicate that the three largest cigarette manufacturers
controlled approximately 83.2% of the United States cigarette
market during 2004. Philip Morris is the largest and most
profitable manufacturer in the market, and its profits are
derived principally from its sale of premium cigarettes. Philip
Morris had approximately 62.3% of the premium segment and 47.5%
of the total domestic market during 2004. During 2004, all of
Liggetts sales were in the discount segment, and its share
of the total domestic cigarette market was 2.3%. Philip Morris
and RJR Tobacco (which is now part of Reynolds American), the
two largest cigarette manufacturers, have historically, because
of their dominant market share, been able to determine cigarette
prices for the various pricing tiers within the industry. The
other cigarette manufacturers historically have brought their
prices into line with the levels established by these two major
manufacturers.
In July 2004, RJR Tobacco and Brown & Williamson, the second
and third largest cigarette manufacturers, completed the
combination of their United States tobacco businesses to create
Reynolds American Inc. This transaction will further consolidate
the dominance of the domestic cigarette market by Philip Morris
and the newly created Reynolds American, who will have a
combined market share of approximately 76%. This concentration
of United States market share could make it more difficult for
Liggett and Vector Tobacco to compete for shelf space in retail
outlets and could impact price competition in the market, either
of which could have a material adverse affect on their sales
volume, operating income and cash flows, which would harm us and
the value of the notes and our common stock.
Liggetts business is highly dependent on the discount
cigarette segment.
Liggett depends more on sales in the discount cigarette segment
of the market, relative to the full-price premium segment, than
its major competitors. All of Liggetts unit volume in
2004, and approximately 94.6% of Liggetts unit sales in
2003, were generated in the discount segment. The discount
segment is highly competitive, with consumers having less brand
loyalty and placing greater emphasis on price. While the three
major manufacturers all compete with Liggett in the discount
segment of the market, the strongest competition for market
share has recently come from a group of small manufacturers and
importers, most of which sell low quality, deep discount
cigarettes. While Liggetts share of the discount market
increased to 7.4% in 2004 from 7.3% in 2003 and 6.7% in 2002,
Management Science Associates data indicate that the discount
market share of these other smaller manufacturers and importers
increased to 39% in 2004 from 37.8% in 2003 and 33.5% in 2002
due to their increased competitive discounting. If pricing in
the discount market continues to be impacted by these smaller
manufacturers and importers, margins in Liggetts only
current market segment could be negatively affected, which in
turn could negatively affect the value of our common stock.
29
Liggetts market share is susceptible to decline.
In years prior to 2000, Liggett suffered a substantial decline
in unit sales and associated market share. Liggetts unit
sales and market share increased during each of 2000, 2001 and
2002, and its market share increased in 2003 while its unit
sales declined. During 2004, Liggetts unit sales and
market share declined compared to the prior year. This earlier
market share erosion resulted in part from Liggetts highly
leveraged capital structure that existed until December 1998 and
its limited ability to match other competitors wholesale
and retail trade programs, obtain retail shelf space for its
products and advertise its brands. The decline in recent years
also resulted from adverse developments in the tobacco industry,
intense competition and changes in consumer preferences.
According to Management Science Associates data, Liggetts
overall domestic market share during 2004 was 2.3% compared to
2.4% during 2003 and 2002. Liggetts share of the premium
segment was 0.2% in 2003 and 0.3% in 2002, and its share of the
discount segment during 2004 was 7.4%, up from 7.3% in 2003 and
6.7% in 2002. If Liggetts market share continues to
decline, Liggetts sales volume, operating income and cash
flows could be materially adversely affected, which in turn
could negatively affect the value of our common stock.
The domestic cigarette industry has experienced declining
unit sales in recent periods.
Industry-wide shipments of cigarettes in the United States have
been generally declining for a number of years, with published
industry sources estimating that domestic industry-wide
shipments decreased by approximately 1.7% during 2004. According
to Management Science Associates data, domestic industry-wide
shipments decreased by 4.1% in 2003 compared to 2002.
Liggetts management believes that industry-wide shipments
of cigarettes in the United States will generally continue to
decline as a result of numerous factors. These factors include
health considerations, diminishing social acceptance of smoking,
and a wide variety of federal, state and local laws limiting
smoking in restaurants, bars and other public places, as well as
federal and state excise tax increases and settlement-related
expenses which have contributed to high cigarette price levels
in recent years. If this decline in industry-wide shipments
continues and Liggett is unable to capture market share from its
competitors, or if the industry as a whole is unable to offset
the decline in unit sales with price increases, Liggetts
sales volume, operating income and cash flows could be
materially adversely affected, which in turn could negatively
affect the value of our common stock.
Litigation and regulation will continue to harm the tobacco
industry.
The cigarette industry continues to be challenged on numerous
fronts. New cases continue to be commenced against Liggett and
other cigarette manufacturers. As of December 31, 2004,
there were approximately 330 individual suits, 18 purported
class actions and 17 governmental and other third-party payor
health care reimbursement actions pending in the United States
in which Liggett was a named defendant. A civil lawsuit has been
filed by the United States federal government seeking
disgorgement of approximately $289 billion from various
cigarette manufacturers, including Liggett. A federal appellate
court ruled in February 2005 that disgorgement is not an
available remedy in the case. The government has stated it
intends to appeal. Trial of the case began in September 2004 and
is proceeding. In addition to these cases, in 2000, an action
against cigarette manufacturers involving approximately 1,000
named individual plaintiffs was consolidated before a single
West Virginia state court. Liggett is a defendant in most of the
cases pending in West Virginia. In January 2002, the court
severed Liggett from the trial of the consolidated action. Two
purported class actions have been certified in state court in
Kansas and New Mexico against the cigarette manufacturers for
alleged antitrust violations. As new cases are commenced, the
costs associated with defending these cases and the risks
relating to the inherent unpredictability of litigation continue
to increase.
There are six individual actions where Liggett is the only
defendant, with trial in one of these cases currently scheduled
for March 2005 and trial in another scheduled for May 2005. In
April 2004, in one of these cases, a jury in a Florida state
court action awarded compensatory damages of $0.5 million
against Liggett. In addition, plaintiffs counsel was
awarded legal fees of $0.8 million. Liggett has appealed
the verdict.
In May 2003, a Florida intermediate appellate court overturned a
$790 million punitive damages award against Liggett and
decertified the Engle smoking and health class action. In
May 2004, the Florida Supreme
30
Court agreed to review the case. Oral argument was held in
November 2004. If the intermediate appellate courts ruling
is not upheld on further appeal, it will have a material adverse
effect on us. In November 2000, Liggett filed the
$3.45 million bond required under the bonding statute
enacted in 2000 by the Florida legislature which limits the size
of any bond required, pending appeal, to stay execution of a
punitive damages verdict. In May 2001, Liggett reached an
agreement with the class in the Engle case, which
provided assurance to Liggett that the stay of execution, in
effect under the Florida bonding statute, would not be lifted or
limited at any point until completion of all appeals, including
to the United States Supreme Court. As required by the
agreement, Liggett paid $6.27 million into an escrow
account to be held for the benefit of the Engle class,
and released, along with Liggetts existing
$3.45 million statutory bond, to the court for the benefit
of the class upon completion of the appeals process, regardless
of the outcome of the appeal. In June 2002, the jury in an
individual case brought under the third phase of the Engle
case awarded $37.5 million (subsequently reduced by the
court to $25.1 million) of compensatory damages against
Liggett and two other defendants and found Liggett 50%
responsible for the damages. The verdict, which is subject to
the outcome of the Engle appeal, has been overturned as a
result of the appellate courts ruling discussed above. It
is possible that additional cases could be decided unfavorably
and that there could be further adverse developments in the
Engle case. Liggett may enter into discussions in an
attempt to settle particular cases if it believes it is
appropriate to do so. We cannot predict the cash requirements
related to any future settlements and judgments, including cash
required to bond any appeals, and there is a risk that those
requirements will not be able to be met.
In recent years, there have been a number of restrictive
regulatory actions from various federal administrative bodies,
including the United States Environmental Protection Agency and
the Food and Drug Administration. There have also been adverse
political decisions and other unfavorable developments
concerning cigarette smoking and the tobacco industry, including
the commencement and certification of class actions and the
commencement of third-party payor actions. These developments
generally receive widespread media attention. We are not able to
evaluate the effect of these developing matters on pending
litigation or the possible commencement of additional
litigation, but our consolidated financial position, results of
operations or cash flows could be materially adversely affected
by an unfavorable outcome in any smoking-related litigation,
which in turn could negatively affect the value of our common
stock.
Liggett may have additional payment obligations under the
Master Settlement Agreement and its other settlement agreements
with the states.
Liggett has recently been notified that all Participating
Manufacturers payment obligations under the Master
Settlement Agreement, dating from the agreements execution
in late 1998, have been recalculated utilizing net unit amounts,
rather than gross unit amounts (which have been utilized since
1999). The change in the method of calculation could, among
other things, require additional payments by Liggett under the
Master Settlement Agreement of approximately $2 million per
year for the period 2001 through 2004, or a total of
approximately $8 million, and require Liggett to pay an
additional amount of approximately $2 million per year in
2005 and in future periods by lowering Liggetts market
share exemption under the Master Settlement Agreement. Liggett
contends that the retroactive change from utilizing gross unit
amounts to net unit amounts is impermissible and has objected to
the change. Liggett intends to challenge it by way of
arbitration or court proceeding if it is ultimately implemented.
In 2004, the Attorneys General for each of Florida, Mississippi
and Texas advised Liggett that they believed that Liggett has
failed to make all required payments under the settlement
agreements with these three states for the period 1998 through
2003 and that additional payments may be due for 2004 and
subsequent years. Liggett believes these allegations are without
merit, based, among other things, on the language of the
most-favored nations provisions of the settlement agreements. In
December 2004, the State of Florida offered to settle all
amounts allegedly owed by Liggett for the period through 2003
for the sum of $13.5 million. In November 2004, the State
of Mississippi offered to settle all amounts allegedly owed by
Liggett for the period through 2003 for the sum of
$6.5 million. In March 2005, the State of Florida
reaffirmed its December 2004 offer to settle and provided
Liggett with a 60 day notice to cure its purported default
in payment.
31
No amounts have been accrued in the accompanying financial
statements for any additional amounts that may be payable by
Liggett under the Master Settlement Agreement, due to the
recalculation of the Participating Manufacturers payment
obligations, or under the settlement agreements with these three
states. There can be no assurance that Liggett will prevail and
that Liggett will not be required to make additional material
payments under the Master Settlement and the settlement
agreements with these three states, which payments could
materially adversely affect our consolidated financial position,
results of operations or cash flows and the value of our common
stock.
Liggett has significant sales to a single customer.
During 2004, 13.8% of Liggetts total revenues and 13.4% of
our consolidated revenues were generated by sales to
Liggetts largest customer. Liggetts contract with
this customer currently extends through June 30, 2005. If
this customer discontinues its relationship with Liggett or
experiences financial difficulties, Liggetts results of
operations could be materially adversely affected.
Liggett may be adversely affected by recent legislation to
eliminate the federal tobacco quota system.
In October 2004, federal legislation was enacted which will
eliminate the federal tobacco quota system and price support
system. Pursuant to the legislation, manufacturers of tobacco
products will be assessed $10.1 billion over a ten year
period to compensate tobacco growers and quota holders for the
elimination of their quota rights. Cigarette manufacturers will
initially be responsible for 96.3% of the assessment (subject to
adjustment in the future), which will be allocated based on
relative unit volume of domestic cigarette shipments. We
currently estimate that Liggetts assessment will be
approximately $23 million for the first year of the program
which began January 1, 2005. The cost of the legislation to
the three largest cigarette manufacturers will likely be less
than the cost to smaller manufacturers, including Liggett and
Vector Tobacco, because one effect of the legislation is that
the three largest manufacturers will no longer be obligated to
make certain contractual payments, commonly known as Phase II
payments, they agreed in 1999 to make to tobacco-producing
states. The ultimate impact of this legislation cannot be
determined, but there is a risk that smaller manufacturers, such
as Liggett and Vector Tobacco, will be disproportionately
affected by the legislation, which could have a material adverse
effect on us.
Excise tax increases adversely affect cigarette sales.
Cigarettes are subject to substantial and increasing federal,
state and local excise taxes. The federal excise tax on
cigarettes is currently $0.39 per pack. State and local sales
and excise taxes vary considerably and, when combined with the
current federal excise tax, may currently exceed $4.00 per pack.
In 2004, 10 states enacted increases in excise taxes. Congress
has considered significant increases in the federal excise tax
or other payments from tobacco manufacturers, and various states
and other jurisdictions have currently under consideration or
pending legislation proposing further state excise tax
increases. We believe that increases in excise and similar taxes
have had an adverse impact on sales of cigarettes. Further
substantial federal or state excise tax increases could
accelerate the trend away from smoking and could have a material
adverse effect on Liggetts sales and profitability, which
in turn could negatively affect the value of our common stock.
Vector Tobacco is subject to risks inherent in new product
development initiatives.
We have made, and plan to continue to make, significant
investments in Vector Tobaccos development projects in the
tobacco industry. Vector Tobacco is in the business of
developing and marketing the low nicotine and nicotine-free
QUEST cigarette products and developing reduced risk cigarette
products. These initiatives are subject to high levels of risk,
uncertainties and contingencies, including the challenges
inherent in new product development. There is a risk that
continued investments in Vector Tobacco will harm our results of
operations, liquidity or cash flow.
The substantial risks facing Vector Tobacco include:
Risks of market acceptance of new products. In November
2001, Vector Tobacco launched nationwide its reduced carcinogen
OMNI cigarettes. During 2002, acceptance of OMNI in the
marketplace was limited,
32
with revenues of only approximately $5.1 million on sales
of 70.7 million units. During 2003, OMNI sales activity was
minimal as Vector Tobacco has not been actively marketing the
OMNI product, and the product is not currently in distribution.
Vector Tobacco was unable to achieve the anticipated breadth of
distribution and sales of the OMNI product due, in part, to the
lack of success of its advertising and marketing efforts in
differentiating OMNI from other conventional cigarettes with
consumers through the reduced carcinogen message.
Over the next several years, our in-house research program,
together with third-party collaborators, plans to conduct
appropriate studies relating OMNIs reduction of
carcinogens to reduced risk in smokers and, based on these
studies, we will review the marketing and positioning of the
OMNI brand in order to formulate a strategy for its long-term
success. OMNI has not been a commercially successful product to
date, and there is a risk that we will be unable to take action
to significantly increase the level of OMNI sales in the future.
Vector Tobacco introduced its low nicotine and nicotine-free
QUEST cigarettes in an initial seven-state market in January
2003 and in Arizona in January 2004. During the second quarter
of 2004, based on an analysis of the market data obtained since
the introduction of the QUEST product, we determined to postpone
indefinitely the national launch of QUEST. A national launch of
the QUEST brands would require the expenditure of substantial
additional sums for advertising and sales promotion, with no
assurance of consumer acceptance. Low nicotine and nicotine-free
cigarettes may not ultimately be accepted by adult smokers and
also may not prove to be commercially successful products. Adult
smokers may decide not to purchase cigarettes made with low
nicotine and nicotine-free tobaccos due to taste or other
preferences, or due to the use of genetically modified tobacco
or other product modifications.
Recoverability of costs of inventory. At
December 31, 2004, approximately $1.6 million of our
inventory was associated with Vector Tobaccos QUEST
product. We estimate an inventory reserve for excess quantities
and obsolete items, taking into account future demand and market
conditions. During the second quarter of 2004, we recognized a
non-cash charge of $37 million to adjust the carrying value
of excess leaf tobacco inventory for the QUEST product, based on
estimates of future demand and market conditions. If actual
demand or market conditions in the future are less favorable
than those estimated, additional inventory write-downs may be
required.
Third party allegations that Vector Tobacco products are
unlawful or bear deceptive or unsubstantiated product claims.
Vector Tobacco is engaged in the development and marketing
of low nicotine and nicotine-free cigarettes and the development
of reduced risk cigarette products. With respect to OMNI, which
is not currently being distributed by Vector Tobacco, reductions
in carcinogens have not yet been proven to result in a safer
cigarette. Like other cigarettes, the OMNI and QUEST products
also produce tar, carbon monoxide, other harmful by-products,
and, in the case of OMNI, increased levels of nitric oxide and
formaldehyde. There are currently no specific governmental
standards or parameters for these products and product claims.
There is a risk that federal or state regulators may object to
Vector Tobaccos reduced carcinogen and low nicotine and
nicotine-free cigarette products as unlawful or allege they bear
deceptive or unsubstantiated product claims, and seek the
removal of the products from the marketplace, or significant
changes to advertising. Various concerns regarding Vector
Tobaccos advertising practices have been expressed to
Vector Tobacco by certain state attorneys general. Vector
Tobacco has engaged in discussions in an effort to resolve these
concerns and Vector Tobacco has recently agreed to suspend all
print advertising for its QUEST brand while discussions are
pending. If Vector Tobacco is unable to advertise its QUEST
brand, it could have a material adverse effect on sales of
QUEST. Allegations by federal or state regulators, public health
organizations and other tobacco manufacturers that Vector
Tobaccos products are unlawful, or that its public
statements or advertising contain misleading or unsubstantiated
health claims or product comparisons, may result in litigation
or governmental proceedings. Vector Tobaccos defense
against such claims could require it to incur substantial
expense and to divert significant efforts of its scientific and
marketing personnel. An adverse determination in a judicial
proceeding or by a regulatory agency could have a material and
adverse impact on Vector Tobaccos business, operating
results and prospects.
Potential extensive government regulation. Vector
Tobaccos business may become subject to extensive
additional domestic and international government regulation.
Various proposals have been made for federal, state and
international legislation to regulate cigarette manufacturers
generally, and reduced constituent cigarettes specifically. It
is possible that laws and regulations may be adopted covering
matters such as the
33
manufacture, sale, distribution and labeling of tobacco products
as well as any health claims associated with reduced carcinogen
and low nicotine and nicotine-free cigarette products and the
use of genetically modified tobacco. A system of regulation by
agencies such as the Food and Drug Administration, the Federal
Trade Commission and the United States Department of Agriculture
may be established. In addition, a group of public health
organizations submitted a petition to the Food and Drug
Administration, alleging that the marketing of the OMNI product
is subject to regulation by the FDA under existing law. Vector
Tobacco has filed a response in opposition to the petition. The
FTC has expressed interest in the regulation of tobacco products
made by tobacco manufacturers, including Vector Tobacco, which
bear reduced carcinogen claims. The outcome of any of the
foregoing cannot be predicted, but any of the foregoing could
have a material adverse impact on Vector Tobaccos
business, operating results and prospects.
Necessity of obtaining Food and Drug Administration approval
to market QUEST as a smoking cessation product. In October
2003, we announced that Jed E. Rose, Ph.D., Director of Duke
University Medical Centers Nicotine Research Program and
co-inventor of the nicotine patch, had conducted a study at Duke
University Medical Center to provide preliminary evaluation of
the use of the QUEST technology as a smoking cessation aid. We
have received guidance from the Food and Drug Administration as
to the additional clinical research and regulatory filings
necessary to market QUEST as a smoking cessation product. We
believe that obtaining the Food and Drug Administrations
approval to market QUEST as a smoking cessation product will be
an important factor in the long-term commercial success of the
QUEST brand. No assurance can be given that such approval can be
obtained or as to the timing of any such approval if received.
Competition from other cigarette manufacturers with greater
resources. Vector Tobaccos competitors generally have
substantially greater resources than Vector Tobacco has,
including financial, marketing and personnel resources. Other
major tobacco companies have stated that they are working on
reduced risk cigarette products and have made publicly available
at this time only limited additional information concerning
their activities. Philip Morris has announced it is developing
products that potentially reduce smokers exposure to
harmful compounds in cigarette smoke. RJR Tobacco has stated
that in 2003 it began a phased expansion into a select number of
retail chain outlets of a cigarette product that primarily heats
rather than burns tobacco, which it claims reduces the toxicity
of its smoke. In 2002, Brown & Williamson Tobacco
Corporation announced it was test marketing a new cigarette with
reduced levels of many toxins which it may introduce on a
national basis. There is a substantial likelihood that other
major tobacco companies will continue to introduce new products
that are designed to compete directly with Vector Tobaccos
reduced carcinogen and low nicotine and nicotine-free products.
Potential disputes concerning intellectual property.
Vector Tobaccos ability to commercially exploit its
proprietary technology for its reduced carcinogen and low
nicotine and nicotine-free products depends in large part on its
ability to obtain and defend issued patents, to obtain further
patent protection for its existing technology in the United
States and other jurisdictions, and to operate without
infringing on the patents and proprietary rights of others both
in the United States and abroad. Additionally, it must be able
to obtain appropriate licenses to patents or proprietary rights
held by third parties if infringement would otherwise occur,
both in the United States and in foreign countries.
Intellectual property rights, including Vector Tobaccos
patents (owned or licensed), involve complex legal and factual
issues. Any conflicts resulting from third party patent
applications and granted patents could significantly limit
Vector Tobaccos ability to obtain meaningful patent
protection or to commercialize its technology. If necessary
patents currently exist or are issued to other companies that
contain competitive or conflicting claims, Vector Tobacco may be
required to obtain licenses to use these patents or to develop
or obtain alternative technology. Licensing agreements, if
required, may not be available on acceptable terms or at all. If
licenses are not obtained, Vector Tobacco could be delayed in,
or prevented from, pursuing the further development or marketing
of its new cigarette products. Any alternative technology, if
feasible, could take several years to develop.
Litigation which could result in substantial cost also may be
necessary to enforce any patents to which Vector Tobacco has
rights, or to determine the scope, validity and unenforceability
of other parties proprietary rights which may affect
Vector Tobaccos rights. Vector Tobacco also may have to
participate in interference
34
proceedings declared by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office to
determine the priority of an invention or in opposition
proceedings in foreign counties or jurisdictions, which could
result in substantial costs. There is a risk that its licensed
patents would be held invalid by a court or administrative body
or that an alleged infringer would not be found to be
infringing. The mere uncertainty resulting from the institution
and continuation of any technology-related litigation or any
interference or opposition proceedings could have a material and
adverse effect on Vector Tobaccos business, operating
results and prospects.
Vector Tobacco may also rely on unpatented trade secrets and
know-how to maintain its competitive position, which it seeks to
protect, in part, by confidentiality agreements with employees,
consultants, suppliers and others. There is a risk that these
agreements will be breached or terminated, that Vector Tobacco
will not have adequate remedies for any breach, or that its
trade secrets will otherwise become known or be independently
discovered by competitors.
Dependence on key scientific personnel. Vector
Tobaccos business depends on the continued services of key
scientific personnel for its continued development and growth.
The loss of Dr. Anthony Albino, Vice President of Public
Health, could have a serious negative impact upon Vector
Tobaccos business, operating results and prospects.
Ability to raise capital and manage growth of business.
If Vector Tobacco succeeds in introducing to market and
increasing consumer acceptance for its new cigarette products,
Vector Tobacco will be required to obtain significant amounts of
additional capital and manage substantial volume from its
customers. There is a risk that adequate amounts of additional
capital will not be available to Vector Tobacco to fund the
growth of its business. To accommodate growth and compete
effectively, Vector Tobacco will also be required to attract,
integrate, motivate and retain additional highly skilled sales,
technical and other employees. Vector Tobacco will face
competition for these people. Its ability to manage volume also
will depend on its ability to scale up its tobacco processing,
production and distribution operations. There is a risk that it
will not succeed in scaling its processing, production and
distribution operations and that its personnel, systems,
procedures and controls will not be adequate to support its
future operations.
Potential delays in obtaining tobacco, other raw materials
and any technology needed to produce products. Vector
Tobacco is dependent on third parties to produce tobacco and
other raw materials that Vector Tobacco requires to manufacture
its products. In addition, the growing of new tobacco and new
seeds is subject to adverse weather conditions. Vector Tobacco
may also need to obtain licenses to technology subject to
patents or proprietary rights of third parties to produce its
products. The failure by such third parties to supply Vector
Tobacco with tobacco, other raw materials and technology on
commercially reasonable terms, or at all, in the absence of
readily available alternative sources, would have a serious
negative impact on Vector Tobaccos business, operating
results and prospects. There is also a risk that interruptions
in the supply of these materials and technology may occur in the
future. Any interruption in their supply could have a serious
negative impact on Vector Tobacco.
The actual costs and savings associated with restructurings
of our tobacco business may differ materially from amounts we
estimate.
In recent years, we have undertaken a number of initiatives to
streamline the cost structure of our tobacco business and
improve operating efficiency and long-term earnings. For
example, during 2002, the sales, marketing and support functions
of our Liggett and Vector Tobacco subsidiaries were combined.
Effective year-end 2003, we closed Vector Tobaccos
Timberlake, North Carolina manufacturing facility and moved all
production to Liggetts facility in Mebane, North Carolina.
In April 2004, we eliminated a number of positions in our
tobacco operations and subleased excess office space. In October
2004, we announced a plan to restructure the operations of
Liggett Vector Brands, effective December 15, 2004. We may
consider various additional opportunities to further improve
efficiencies and reduce costs. These prior and current
initiatives have involved material restructuring and impairment
charges, and any future actions taken are likely to involve
material charges as well. These restructuring charges are based
on our best estimate at the time of restructuring. The status of
the restructuring activities is reviewed on a quarterly basis
and any adjustments to the reserve, which could differ
materially from previous estimates, are recorded as an
adjustment to operating
35
income. Although we may estimate that substantial cost savings
will be associated with these restructuring actions, there is a
risk that these actions could have a serious negative impact on
our tobacco business and that any estimated increases in
profitability cannot be achieved.
New Valley is subject to risks relating to the industries in
which it operates.
Risks of real estate ventures. New Valley has two
significant investments, Douglas Elliman Realty, LLC and the
Sheraton Keauhou Bay Resort & Spa (which reopened in the
fourth quarter 2004), where it holds only a 50% interest. New
Valley must seek approval from other parties for important
actions regarding these joint ventures. Since these other
parties interests may differ from those of New Valley, a
deadlock could arise that might impair the ability of the
ventures to function. Such a deadlock could significantly harm
the ventures.
New Valley may pursue a variety of real estate development
projects. Development projects are subject to special risks
including potential increase in costs, changes in market demand,
inability to meet deadlines which may delay the timely
completion of projects, reliance on contractors who may be
unable to perform and the need to obtain various governmental
and third party consents.
Risks relating to the residential brokerage business.
Through its investment in Douglas Elliman Realty, LLC, New
Valley is subject to the risks and uncertainties endemic to the
residential brokerage business. Both Douglas Elliman and
Prudential Douglas Elliman Real Estate operate as franchisees of
The Prudential Real Estate Affiliates, Inc. Prudential Douglas
Elliman operates each of its offices under its franchisers
brand name, but generally does not own any of the brand names
under which it operates. The franchiser has significant rights
over the use of the franchised service marks and the conduct of
the two brokerage companies business. Prudential Douglas
Ellimans franchiser also has the right to terminate
Douglas Ellimans and Prudential Douglas Ellimans
franchises, upon the occurrence of certain events, including a
bankruptcy or insolvency event, a change in control, a transfer
of rights under the franchise agreements and a failure to
promptly pay amounts due under the franchise agreements. A
termination of Douglas Ellimans or Prudential Douglas
Ellimans franchise agreement could adversely affect New
Valleys investment in Douglas Elliman Realty, LLC.
Interest rates in the United States are currently at
historically low levels. The low interest rate environment
in recent years has significantly contributed to high levels of
existing home sales and residential prices and has positively
impacted Douglas Elliman Realtys operating results.
However, the residential real estate market tends to be cyclical
and typically is affected by changes in the general economic
conditions that are beyond Douglas Elliman Realtys
control. Any of the following could have a material adverse
effect on Douglas Elliman Realtys residential business by
causing a general decline in the number of home sales and/or
prices, which in turn, could adversely affect its revenues and
profitability:
|
|
|
|
|
periods of economic slowdown or recession, |
|
|
|
a change in the current low interest rate environment resulting
in rising interest rates, |
|
|
|
decreasing home ownership rates, or |
|
|
|
declining demand for real estate. |
All of Douglas Elliman Realtys current operations are
located in the New York metropolitan area. Local and
regional economic conditions in this market could differ
materially from prevailing conditions in other parts of the
country. A downturn in the residential real estate market or
economic conditions in that region could have a material adverse
effect on Douglas Elliman Realty and New Valleys
investment in that company.
New Valleys potential investments are unidentified and
may not succeed.
New Valley currently holds a significant amount of marketable
securities and cash not committed to any specific investments.
This subjects a security holder to increased risk and
uncertainty because a security holder will not be able to
evaluate how this cash will be invested and the economic merits
of particular investments.
36
There may be substantial delay in locating suitable investment
opportunities. In addition, New Valley may lack relevant
management experience in the areas in which New Valley may
invest. There is a risk that New Valley will fail in targeting,
consummating or effectively integrating or managing any of these
investments.
We depend on our key personnel.
We depend on the efforts of our executive officers and other key
personnel. While we believe that we could find replacements for
these key personnel, the loss of their services could have a
significant adverse effect on our operations.
While we believe our controls systems are effective, there
are inherent limitations in all control systems, and
misstatements due to error or fraud may occur and not be
detected.
We continue to take action to assure compliance with the
internal controls, disclosure controls and other requirements of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. Our management, including our Chief
Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, cannot guarantee
that our internal controls and disclosure controls will prevent
all possible errors or all fraud. A control system, no matter
how well conceived and operated, can provide only reasonable,
not absolute, assurance that the objectives of the control
system are met. In addition, the design of a control system must
reflect the fact that there are resource constraints and the
benefit of controls must be relative to their costs. Because of
the inherent limitations in all control systems, no system of
controls can provide absolute assurance that all controls issues
and instances of fraud, if any, within our company have been
detected. These inherent limitations include the realities that
judgments in decision-making can be faulty and that breakdowns
can occur because of simple error or mistake. Further, controls
can be circumvented by individual acts of some persons, by
collusion of two or more persons, or by management override of
the controls. The design of any system of controls also is based
in part upon certain assumptions about the likelihood of future
events, and there can be no assurance that any design will
succeed in achieving its stated goals under all potential future
conditions. Over time, a control may be inadequate because of
changes in conditions or the degree of compliance with the
policies or procedures may deteriorate. Because of inherent
limitations in a cost-effective control system, misstatements
due to error or fraud may occur and not be detected.
We have many potentially dilutive securities outstanding.
At December 31, 2004, we had outstanding options granted to
employees to purchase approximately 8,849,964 shares of our
common stock, at prices ranging from $7.28 to $37.60 per share,
of which options for 8,473,807 shares were exercisable at
December 31, 2004. We also have outstanding two series of
convertible notes maturing in July 2008 and November 2011, which
are currently convertible into 9,556,211 shares of our common
stock. The issuance of these shares will cause dilution which
may adversely affect the market price of our common stock. The
availability for sale of significant quantities of our common
stock could adversely affect the prevailing market price of the
stock.
Our stock price may be volatile.
The trading price of our common stock has ranged between $13.86
and $17.22 per share over the past 52 weeks. The overall
market and the price of our common stock may fluctuate greatly.
The trading price of our common stock may be significantly
affected by various factors, including:
|
|
|
|
|
the depth and liquidity of the trading market for our common
stock, |
|
|
|
quarterly variations in its actual or anticipated operating
results, |
|
|
|
changes in investors and analysts perceptions of the
business and legal risks facing us and the tobacco industry, |
|
|
|
changes in estimates of its earnings by investors and analysts,
and |
|
|
|
announcements or activities by its competitors. |
37
Our and New Valleys principal executive offices are
located in Miami, Florida. We lease 13,849 square feet of office
space from an unaffiliated company in an office building in
Miami, which we share with New Valley and various of our and
their subsidiaries. New Valley has entered into an
expense-sharing arrangement for its use of such office space.
The lease expires in November 2009.
We lease approximately 18,000 square feet of office space in New
York, New York under leases that expire in 2013. Approximately
9,000 square feet of such space has been subleased to third
parties for the balance of the term of the lease. New
Valleys operating properties are discussed above under the
description of New Valleys business.
Substantially all of Liggetts tobacco manufacturing
facilities, consisting principally of factories and distribution
and storage facilities, are located in or near Mebane and
Durham, North Carolina. Various of such facilities are owned and
others are leased. As of December 31, 2004, the principal
properties owned or leased by Liggett are as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Owned | |
|
Approximate | |
|
|
|
|
or | |
|
Total Square | |
Type |
|
Location | |
|
Leased | |
|
Footage | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
Office and Manufacturing Complex
|
|
|
Durham, NC |
|
|
|
Owned |
|
|
|
836,000 |
|
Warehouse
|
|
|
Durham, NC |
|
|
|
Leased |
|
|
|
128,000 |
|
Storage Facilities
|
|
|
Danville, VA |
|
|
|
Owned |
|
|
|
578,000 |
|
Office and Manufacturing Complex
|
|
|
Mebane, NC |
|
|
|
Owned |
|
|
|
240,000 |
|
Warehouse
|
|
|
Mebane, NC |
|
|
|
Owned |
|
|
|
60,000 |
|
Warehouse
|
|
|
Mebane, NC |
|
|
|
Leased |
|
|
|
50,000 |
|
Warehouse
|
|
|
Mebane, NC |
|
|
|
Leased |
|
|
|
30,000 |
|
Liggetts Durham, North Carolina complex consists of seven
major structures over approximately nine acres. Included are
Liggetts former manufacturing plant, a research facility
and offices. Liggett leases portions of these facilities to
Vector Tobacco and Vector Research Ltd. In July 2003, Liggett
granted an unaffiliated third party an option to purchase
Liggetts former manufacturing facility and other excess
real estate in Durham, North Carolina. The option agreement
permits the purchaser to acquire the property, during a two-year
period expiring July 15, 2005, at a purchase price of
$15 million. Liggett has received nonrefundable option fees
of $1.25 million. Liggett will be entitled to receive
additional option fees of $0.25 million during the
remaining option period. The option fees will generally be
creditable against the purchase price. The purchaser is
currently seeking financing for the transaction, and there can
be no assurance the sale of the property will occur.
In November 1999, 100 Maple LLC, a newly formed entity owned by
Liggett, purchased an approximately 240,000 square foot
manufacturing facility located on 42 acres in Mebane, North
Carolina. In October 2000, Liggett completed a 60,000 square
foot warehouse addition at the Mebane facility, and finished the
relocation of its tobacco manufacturing operations to Mebane.
Liggett also leases two smaller warehouses in Mebane.
In June 2001, a subsidiary of Vector Tobacco purchased an
approximately 350,000 square foot manufacturing facility located
on approximately 56 acres in Timberlake, North Carolina. In the
first quarter of 2002, Vector Tobacco began production at the
facility. As of January 1, 2004, the Timberlake facility
was closed, and production of Vector Tobaccos brands moved
to Liggetts Mebane facility. In July 2004, the sale of the
Timberlake property and equipment closed.
Liggett Vector Brands leases approximately 24,000 square feet of
office space in Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. The
lease expires in October 2007.
Liggetts management believes that its property, plant and
equipment are well maintained and in good condition and that its
existing facilities are sufficient to accommodate a substantial
increase in production.
38
|
|
Item 3. |
Legal Proceedings |
Liggett (and, in certain cases, Brooke Group Holding) and other
United States cigarette manufacturers have been named as
defendants in numerous, direct, third-party and class actions
predicated on the theory that they should be liable for damages
from adverse health effects alleged to have been caused by
cigarette smoking or by exposure to secondary smoke from
cigarettes. See Item 1.
Business Liggett Group
Inc. Legislation, Regulation and
Litigation. Reference is made to Note 15 to our
consolidated financial statements, which contains a general
description of certain legal proceedings to which Brooke Group
Holding, Liggett, New Valley or their subsidiaries are a party
and certain related matters. Reference is also made to
Exhibit 99.1, Material Legal Proceedings, incorporated
herein, for additional information regarding the pending
smoking-related material legal proceedings to which Brooke Group
Holding and/or Liggett are party. A copy of Exhibit 99.1
will be furnished without charge upon written request to us at
our principal executive offices, 100 S.E. Second Street, Miami,
Florida 33131, Attn: Investor Relations.
|
|
Item 4. |
Submission of Matters to a Vote of Security Holders |
During the last quarter of 2004, no matter was submitted to
stockholders for their vote or approval, through the
solicitation of proxies or otherwise.
EXECUTIVE OFFICERS OF THE REGISTRANT
The table below, together with the accompanying text, presents
certain information regarding all our current executive officers
as of March 14, 2005. Each of the executive officers serves
until the election and qualification of such individuals
successor or until such individuals death, resignation or
removal by the Board of Directors of the respective company.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Individual | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Became an | |
Name |
|
Age | |
|
Position |
|
Executive Officer | |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
Bennett S. LeBow
|
|
|
67 |
|
|
Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer
|
|
|
1990 |
|
Howard M. Lorber
|
|
|
56 |
|
|
President and Chief Operating Officer
|
|
|
2001 |
|
Richard J. Lampen
|
|
|
51 |
|
|
Executive Vice President
|
|
|
1996 |
|
Joselynn D. Van Siclen
|
|
|
64 |
|
|
Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer
|
|
|
1996 |
|
Marc N. Bell
|
|
|
44 |
|
|
Vice President, General Counsel and Secretary
|
|
|
1998 |
|
Ronald J. Bernstein
|
|
|
51 |
|
|
President and Chief Executive Officer of Liggett
|
|
|
2000 |
|
Bennett S. LeBow has been our Chairman of the Board and
Chief Executive Officer since June 1990 and has been a director
of ours since October 1986. Mr. LeBow has served as
President and Chief Executive Officer of Vector Tobacco since
January 2001 and as a director since October 1999.
Mr. LeBow has been Chairman of the Board of New Valley
since January 1988 and Chief Executive Officer since November
1994.
Howard M. Lorber has been our President and Chief
Operating Officer and a director of ours since January 2001.
Since November 1994, Mr. Lorber has served as President and
Chief Operating Officer of New Valley, where he also serves as a
director. Mr. Lorber has been Chairman of the Board of
Hallman & Lorber Assoc., Inc., consultants and actuaries of
qualified pension and profit sharing plans, and various of its
affiliates since 1975; a stockholder and a registered
representative of Aegis Capital Corp., a broker-dealer and a
member firm of the National Association of Securities Dealers,
since 1984; Chairman of the Board of Directors since 1987 and
Chief Executive Officer since November 1993 of Nathans
Famous, Inc., a chain of fast food restaurants; a consultant to
us and Liggett from January 1994 to January 2001; a director of
United Capital Corp., a real estate investment and diversified
manufacturing company, since May 1991; and
39
Chairman of the Board of Ladenburg Thalmann Financial Services
since May 2001. He is also a trustee of Long Island University.
Richard J. Lampen has served as the Executive Vice
President of us since July 1996. Since October 1995,
Mr. Lampen has served as the Executive Vice President of
New Valley and since November 1998 as President and Chief
Executive Officer of CDSI Holdings Inc., an affiliate of New
Valley with an interest in a direct mail and telemarketing
services company. From May 1992 to September 1995,
Mr. Lampen was a partner at Steel Hector & Davis, a law
firm located in Miami, Florida. From January 1991 to April 1992,
Mr. Lampen was a Managing Director at Salomon Brothers Inc,
an investment bank, and was an employee at Salomon Brothers Inc
from 1986 to April 1992. Mr. Lampen is a director of New
Valley, CDSI Holdings and Ladenburg Thalmann Financial Services.
Mr. Lampen has served as a director of a number of other
companies, including U.S. Can Corporation, The International
Bank of Miami, N.A. and Specs Music Inc., as well as a
court-appointed independent director of Trump Plaza Funding, Inc.
Joselynn D. Van Siclen has been Vice President, Chief
Financial Officer and Treasurer of us since May 1996, and
currently holds various positions with certain of VGR
Holdings subsidiaries, including Vice President and
Treasurer of Eve since April 1994 and May 1996, respectively.
Prior to May 1996, Ms. Van Siclen served as our Director of
Finance and was employed in various accounting capacities with
our subsidiaries since 1992. Since before 1990 to November 1992,
Ms. Van Siclen was an audit manager for the accounting firm
of Coopers & Lybrand L.L.P.
Marc N. Bell has been the Vice President of us since
January 1998, the General Counsel and Secretary of us since May
1994 and the Senior Vice President and General Counsel of Vector
Tobacco since April 2002. Since November 1994, Mr. Bell has
served as Associate General Counsel and Secretary of New Valley
and since February 1998, as Vice President of New Valley. Prior
to May 1994, Mr. Bell was with the law firm of Zuckerman
Spaeder LLP in Miami, Florida and from June 1991 to May 1993,
with the law firm of Fischbein Badillo Wagner
Harding in New York, New York.
Ronald J. Bernstein has served as President and Chief
Executive Officer of Liggett since September 1, 2000 and of
Liggett Vector Brands since March 2002 and has been a director
of ours since March 2004. From July 1996 to December 1999,
Mr. Bernstein served as General Director and, from December
1999 to September 2000, as Chairman of Liggett-Ducat. Prior to
that time, Mr. Bernstein served in various positions with
Liggett commencing in 1991, including Executive Vice President
and Chief Financial Officer.
40
PART II
|
|
Item 5. |
Market for Registrants Common Equity, Related
Stockholder Matters and Issuer Purchases of Equity
Securities |
Our common stock is listed and traded on the New York Stock
Exchange under the symbol VGR. The following table
sets forth, for the periods indicated, high and low sale prices
for a share of its common stock on the NYSE, as reported by the
NYSE, and quarterly cash dividends declared on shares of common
stock:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash | |
Year |
|
High | |
|
Low | |
|
Dividends | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
2004:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fourth Quarter
|
|
$ |
16.92 |
|
|
$ |
14.87 |
|
|
$ |
.40 |
|
Third Quarter
|
|
|
16.75 |
|
|
|
14.30 |
|
|
|
.38 |
|
Second Quarter
|
|
|
16.50 |
|
|
|
13.86 |
|
|
|
.38 |
|
First Quarter
|
|
|
17.38 |
|
|
|
15.40 |
|
|
|
.38 |
|
|
2003:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fourth Quarter
|
|
$ |
16.43 |
|
|
$ |
13.63 |
|
|
$ |
.38 |
|
Third Quarter
|
|
|
16.55 |
|
|
|
12.69 |
|
|
|
.36 |
|
Second Quarter
|
|
|
16.37 |
|
|
|
9.94 |
|
|
|
.36 |
|
First Quarter
|
|
|
13.15 |
|
|
|
9.97 |
|
|
|
.36 |
|
At March 8, 2005, there were approximately 496 holders of
record of our common stock.
The declaration of future cash dividends is within the
discretion of our Board of Directors and is subject to a variety
of contingencies such as market conditions, earnings and our
financial condition as well as the availability of cash.
Liggetts revolving credit agreement currently prohibits
Liggett from paying dividends to VGR Holding unless
Liggetts borrowing availability exceeds $5 million
for the thirty days prior to payment of the dividend, and
immediately after giving effect to the dividend, and it is in
compliance with the covenants in the credit facility, including
an adjusted net worth and working capital requirement.
We paid 5% stock dividends on September 27, 2002,
September 29, 2003 and September 29, 2004 to the
holders of our common stock. All information presented in this
report is adjusted for the stock dividends.
Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities
No securities of ours were repurchased by us or our affiliated
purchasers during the fourth quarter of 2004.
41
|
|
Item 6. |
Selected Financial Data |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31, | |
|
|
| |
|
|
2004 | |
|
2003 | |
|
2002 | |
|
2001 | |
|
2000 | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
(dollars in thousands, except per share amounts) | |
Statement of Operations Data:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Revenues(1),(4)
|
|
$ |
498,860 |
|
|
$ |
529,385 |
|
|
$ |
503,078 |
|
|
$ |
447,382 |
|
|
$ |
415,055 |
|
Income (loss) from continuing operations
|
|
|
4,039 |
|
|
|
(16,132 |
) |
|
|
(31,819 |
) |
|
|
21,200 |
|
|
|
167,754 |
|
Income (loss) from discontinued operations
|
|
|
2,689 |
|
|
|
522 |
|
|
|
25 |
|
|
|
(537 |
) |
|
|
8,285 |
|
Loss from extraordinary items(2)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1,821 |
) |
Net income (loss)
|
|
|
6,728 |
|
|
|
(15,610 |
) |
|
|
(31,794 |
) |
|
|
20,663 |
|
|
|
174,218 |
|
Per basic common share(3):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income (loss) from continuing operations
|
|
$ |
0.10 |
|
|
$ |
(0.40 |
) |
|
$ |
(0.82 |
) |
|
$ |
0.62 |
|
|
$ |
5.86 |
|
|
Income (loss) from discontinued operations
|
|
$ |
0.06 |
|
|
$ |
0.02 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
(0.02 |
) |
|
$ |
0.29 |
|
|
Loss from extraordinary items
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
(0.06 |
) |
|
Net income (loss) applicable to common shares
|
|
$ |
0.16 |
|
|
$ |
(0.38 |
) |
|
$ |
(0.82 |
) |
|
$ |
0.60 |
|
|
$ |
6.09 |
|
Per diluted common share(3):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income (loss) from continuing operations
|
|
$ |
0.10 |
|
|
$ |
(0.40 |
) |
|
$ |
(0.82 |
) |
|
$ |
0.54 |
|
|
$ |
5.23 |
|
|
Income (loss) from discontinued operations
|
|
$ |
0.06 |
|
|
$ |
0.02 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
(0.01 |
) |
|
$ |
0.26 |
|
|
Loss from extraordinary items
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
(0.06 |
) |
|
Net income (loss) applicable to common shares
|
|
$ |
0.16 |
|
|
$ |
(0.38 |
) |
|
$ |
(0.82 |
) |
|
$ |
0.53 |
|
|
$ |
5.43 |
|
Cash distributions declared per common share(3)
|
|
$ |
1.54 |
|
|
$ |
1.47 |
|
|
$ |
1.40 |
|
|
$ |
1.33 |
|
|
$ |
1.03 |
|
Balance Sheet Data:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Current assets
|
|
$ |
242,124 |
|
|
$ |
314,741 |
|
|
$ |
376,815 |
|
|
$ |
515,727 |
|
|
$ |
269,942 |
|
Total assets
|
|
|
535,895 |
|
|
|
628,212 |
|
|
|
707,270 |
|
|
|
688,903 |
|
|
|
425,848 |
|
Current liabilities
|
|
|
119,835 |
|
|
|
173,086 |
|
|
|
184,384 |
|
|
|
141,629 |
|
|
|
138,775 |
|
Notes payable, embedded derivatives, long-term debt and other
obligations, less current portion
|
|
|
280,289 |
|
|
|
299,977 |
|
|
|
307,028 |
|
|
|
225,415 |
|
|
|
39,890 |
|
Noncurrent employee benefits, deferred income taxes, minority
interests and other long-term liabilities
|
|
|
220,574 |
|
|
|
201,624 |
|
|
|
193,561 |
|
|
|
208,501 |
|
|
|
234,734 |
|
Stockholders equity (deficit)
|
|
|
(84,803 |
) |
|
|
(46,475 |
) |
|
|
22,297 |
|
|
|
113,358 |
|
|
|
12,449 |
|
|
|
(1) |
Revenues include excise taxes of $175,674, $195,342, $192,664,
$151,174 and $116,116, respectively. |
(2) |
Represents loss resulting from the early extinguishment of debt. |
(3) |
Per share computations include the impact of 5% stock dividends
on September 29, 2004, September 29, 2003, September
27, 2002, September 28, 2001 and September 28, 2000. |
(4) |
Revenues in 2002 include $35,199 related to the Medallion
acquisition. |
42
|
|
Item 7. |
Managements Discussion and Analysis of Financial
Condition and Results of Operations |
(Dollars in Thousands, Except Per Share Amounts)
Overview
We are a holding company for a number of businesses. We are
engaged principally in:
|
|
|
|
|
the manufacture and sale of cigarettes in the United States
through our subsidiary Liggett Group Inc., and |
|
|
|
the development and marketing of the low nicotine and
nicotine-free QUEST cigarette products and the development of
reduced risk cigarette products through our subsidiary Vector
Tobacco Inc. |
In recent years, we have undertaken a number of initiatives to
streamline the cost structure of our tobacco business and
improve operating efficiency and long-term earnings. During
2002, the sales and marketing functions, along with certain
support functions, of our Liggett and Vector Tobacco
subsidiaries were combined into a new entity, Liggett Vector
Brands Inc. This company coordinates and executes the sales and
marketing efforts for our tobacco operations.
Effective year-end 2003, we closed Vector Tobaccos
Timberlake, North Carolina cigarette manufacturing facility in
order to reduce excess cigarette production capacity and improve
operating efficiencies company-wide. Production of QUEST and
Vector Tobaccos other cigarette brands was transferred to
Liggetts state-of-the-art manufacturing facility in
Mebane, North Carolina. In July 2004, we completed the sale of
the Timberlake facility and equipment.
In April 2004, we eliminated a number of positions in our
tobacco operations and subleased excess office space. In October
2004, we announced a plan to restructure the operations of
Liggett Vector Brands. Liggett Vector Brands has realigned its
sales force and adjusted its business model to more efficiently
serve its chain and independent accounts nationwide. In
connection with the restructuring, we eliminated approximately
330 full-time positions and 135 part-time positions as of
December 15, 2004.
We may consider various additional opportunities to further
improve efficiencies and reduce costs. These prior and current
initiatives have involved material restructuring and impairment
charges, and any further actions taken are likely to involve
material charges as well. Although management may estimate that
substantial cost savings will be associated with these
restructuring actions, there is a risk that these actions could
have a serious negative impact on our tobacco operations and
that any estimated increases in profitability cannot be achieved.
Our majority-owned subsidiary, New Valley Corporation, is
currently engaged in the real estate business and is seeking to
acquire additional operating companies and real estate
properties. In December 2002, New Valley increased its ownership
to 50% in Douglas Elliman Realty, LLC, which operates the
largest residential brokerage company in the New York
metropolitan area. In February 2005, New Valley completed the
sale for $71,500 of its two office buildings in Princeton, New
Jersey.
All of Liggetts unit volume in 2004 was in the discount
segment, which Liggetts management believes has been the
primary growth segment in the industry for over a decade. The
significant discounting of premium cigarettes in recent years
has led to brands, such as EVE, that were traditionally
considered premium brands to become more appropriately
categorized as discount, following list price reductions.
Effective February 1, 2004, Liggett reduced the list prices
for EVE and JADE from the premium price level to the deep
discount level for JADE and the branded discount level for EVE.
Liggetts cigarettes are produced in approximately 220
combinations of length, style and packaging. Liggetts
current brand portfolio includes:
|
|
|
|
|
LIGGETT SELECT the second largest brand in the
deep discount category, |
|
|
|
EVE a leading brand of 120 millimeter
cigarettes in the branded discount category, |
|
|
|
JADE a free-standing deep discount menthol
brand, |
43
|
|
|
|
|
PYRAMID the industrys first deep discount
product with a brand identity, and |
|
|
|
USA and various control and private label brands. |
In 1999, Liggett introduced LIGGETT SELECT, one of the fastest
growing brands in the deep discount category. LIGGETT SELECT is
now the largest seller in Liggetts family of brands,
comprising 55.8% of Liggetts unit volume in 2004 and 50.9%
of Liggetts unit volume in 2003.
We believe that Liggett has gained a sustainable cost advantage
over its competitors through its various settlement agreements.
Under the Master Settlement Agreement reached in November 1998
with 46 state attorneys general and various territories, the
three largest cigarette manufacturers must make settlement
payments to the states and territories based on how many
cigarettes they sell annually. Liggett, however, is not required
to make any payments unless its market share exceeds
approximately 1.65% of the U.S. cigarette market. Additionally,
as a result of the Medallion acquisition, Vector Tobacco
likewise has no payment obligation unless its market share
exceeds approximately 0.28% of the U.S. market.
In recent years, the domestic tobacco business has experienced
the following trends:
|
|
|
|
|
Declining unit volumes due to health considerations, diminishing
social acceptance of smoking, legislative limitations on smoking
in public places, federal and state excise tax increases and
settlement-related expenses which have augmented cigarette
prices, |
|
|
|
Narrower price spreads between the premium and all discount
segments resulting from aggressive premium price promotions by
larger competitors including Philip Morris and Reynolds
American, while price spreads between the traditional discount
and the deep discount markets have been maintained due to the
continued influx of smaller companies producing or importing low
quality, deep discount cigarettes, and |
|
|
|
Loss of market share for discount cigarettes such as those sold
by Liggett due to a continued increase in market share by the
smaller cigarette companies producing low quality, deep discount
cigarettes. |
In January 2003, Vector Tobacco introduced QUEST, its brand of
low nicotine and nicotine-free cigarette products. QUEST is
designed for adult smokers who are interested in reducing their
levels of nicotine intake and is available in both menthol and
non-menthol styles. Each QUEST style (regular and menthol)
offers three different packagings, with decreasing amounts of
nicotine QUEST 1, 2 and 3. QUEST 1, the
low nicotine variety, contains 0.6 milligrams of nicotine. QUEST
2, the extra-low nicotine variety, contains 0.3 milligrams of
nicotine. QUEST 3, the nicotine-free variety, contains only
trace levels of nicotine no more than 0.05
milligrams of nicotine per cigarette. QUEST cigarettes utilize a
proprietary process that enables the production of nicotine-free
tobacco that tastes and smokes like tobacco in conventional
cigarettes. All six QUEST varieties are being sold in box style
packs and are priced comparably to other premium brands.
QUEST was initially available in New York, New Jersey,
Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois and Michigan. These seven
states account for approximately 30% of all cigarette sales in
the United States. A multi-million dollar advertising and
marketing campaign, with advertisements running in magazines and
regional newspapers, supported the product launch. The brand
continues to be supported by point-of-purchase awareness
campaigns and other store-related promotions.
The premium segment of the industry is currently experiencing
intense competitive activity, with increased discounting of
premium brands at all levels of retail. Given these marketplace
conditions, and the results that we have seen to date with
QUEST, we have taken a measured approach to expanding the market
presence of the brand. In November 2003, Vector Tobacco
introduced three menthol varieties of QUEST in the seven state
market. In January 2004, QUEST and QUEST Menthol were introduced
into an expansion market in Arizona, which accounts for
approximately 2% of the industry volume nationwide.
During the second quarter 2004, based on an analysis of the
market data obtained since the introduction of the QUEST
product, we determined to postpone indefinitely the national
launch of QUEST. Vector Tobacco continues to explore potential
opportunities to expand the market for the brand on a more
limited
44
basis. Any determination as to future expansion of the market
presence of QUEST will be based on the ongoing and projected
demand for the product, market conditions in the premium segment
and the prevailing regulatory environment, including any
restrictions on the advertising of the product.
During the second quarter 2004, we recognized a non-cash charge
of $37,000 to adjust the carrying value of excess leaf tobacco
inventory for the QUEST product, based on estimates of future
demand and market conditions. If actual demand for the product
or market conditions are less favorable than those estimated,
additional inventory write-downs may be required.
QUEST brand cigarettes are currently marketed solely to permit
adult smokers, who wish to continue smoking, to gradually reduce
their intake of nicotine. The products are not labeled or
advertised for smoking cessation or as a safer form of smoking.
In October 2003, we announced that Jed E. Rose, Ph.D., Director
of Duke University Medical Centers Nicotine Research
Program and co-inventor of the nicotine patch, had conducted a
study at Duke University Medical Center to provide preliminary
evaluation of the use of the QUEST technology as a smoking
cessation aid. In the preliminary study on QUEST, 33% of QUEST 3
smokers were able to achieve four-week continuous abstinence, a
standard threshold for smoking cessation. Management believes
these results show real promise for the QUEST technology as a
smoking cessation aid. We have received guidance from the Food
and Drug Administration as to the additional clinical research
and regulatory filings necessary to market QUEST as a smoking
cessation product. Management believes that obtaining the Food
and Drug Administrations approval to market QUEST as a
smoking cessation product will be an important factor in the
long-term commercial success of the QUEST brand. No assurance
can be given that such approval can be obtained or as to the
timing of any such approval if received.
In November 2001, Vector Tobacco launched nationwide OMNI, the
first reduced carcinogen cigarette that tastes, smokes and burns
like other premium cigarettes. The OMNI cigarettes are produced
using a patent pending process developed by Vector Tobacco. In
comparison to comparable styles of the leading U.S. cigarette
brand, OMNI cigarettes produce significantly lower levels of
many of the recognized carcinogens and toxins that the medical
community has identified as major contributors to lung cancer
and other diseases in smokers. During 2002, acceptance of OMNI
in the marketplace was limited, with revenues of approximately
$5,100 on sales of 70.7 million units. During 2003, OMNI
sales activity was minimal as Vector Tobacco has not been
actively marketing the OMNI product, and the product is not
currently being distributed. Vector Tobacco was unable to
achieve the anticipated breadth of distribution and sales of the
OMNI product, due in part, to the lack of success of its
advertising and marketing efforts in differentiating OMNI with
consumers through the reduced carcinogen message.
Over the next several years, our in-house research program,
together with third-party collaborators, plans to conduct
appropriate studies relating OMNIs reduction of
carcinogens to reduced risk in smokers and, based on these
studies, management will review the marketing and positioning of
the OMNI brand in order to formulate a strategy for its
long-term success.
Recent Developments
Lawsuit Settlement. In March 2005, we, along with New
Valley and its directors, settled a stockholder derivative suit
that alleges, among other things, that New Valley paid excessive
consideration to purchase our BrookeMil Ltd. subsidiary in 1997.
For additional information concerning the suit, see Note 15
to our consolidated financial statements. The defendants did not
admit any wrongdoing as part of the settlement, which is subject
to court approval. Under the agreement, we will pay New Valley
$7,000, and New Valley will pay legal fees and expenses of up to
$2,150. We recorded a charge to operating, selling,
administrative and general expense in 2004 of $4,177 (net of
minority interests) related to the settlement.
Issuance of Convertible Notes. In November 2004, we sold
$65,500 of our 5% variable interest senior convertible notes due
November 15, 2011 in a private offering to qualified
institutional investors in accordance with Rule 144A under
the Securities Act of 1933. The buyers of the notes had the
right, for a 120-day period ending March 18, 2005, to
purchase an additional $16,375 of the notes. At
December 31, 2004, buyers had exercised their rights to
purchase an additional $1,405 of the notes, and the balance of
the remaining additional notes were purchased during the first
quarter of 2005. The net proceeds of the initial issuance of the
45
notes were used in November 2004 to redeem all of VGR
Holdings outstanding 10% senior secured notes due
March 31, 2006.
Tobacco Quota Elimination. In October 2004, federal
legislation was enacted which will eliminate the federal tobacco
quota and price support program. Pursuant to the legislation,
manufacturers of tobacco products will be assessed $10,140,000
over a ten year period to compensate tobacco growers and quota
holders for the elimination of their quota rights. Cigarette
manufacturers will initially be responsible for 96.3% of the
assessment (subject to adjustment in the future), which will be
allocated based on relative unit volume of domestic cigarette
shipments. Management currently estimates that Liggetts
assessment will be approximately $23,000 for the first year of
the program which began January 1, 2005. The cost of the
legislation to the three largest cigarette manufacturers will
likely be less than the cost to smaller manufacturers, including
Liggett and Vector Tobacco, because one effect of the
legislation is that the three largest manufacturers will no
longer be obligated to make certain contractual payments,
commonly known as Phase II payments, they agreed in 1999 to make
to tobacco-producing states. The ultimate impact of this
legislation cannot be determined, but there is a risk that
smaller manufacturers, such as Liggett and Vector Tobacco, will
be disproportionately affected by the legislation, which could
have a material adverse effect on us.
Effective October 22, 2004, Liggett increased the list
price of all its brands by $.65 per carton. The increase was
taken due to the recently passed federal tobacco buyout
legislation.
Reynolds American. In July 2004, RJR Tobacco and Brown
& Williamson, the second and third largest cigarette
manufacturers, completed the combination of their United States
tobacco businesses. This transaction will further consolidate
the dominance of the domestic cigarette market by Philip Morris
and the newly created Reynolds American, who will have a
combined market share of approximately 76%. This concentration
of United States market share could make it more difficult for
Liggett and Vector Tobacco to compete for shelf space in retail
outlets and could impact price competition in the market, either
of which could have a material adverse affect on their sales
volume, operating income and cash flows.
Timberlake Sale. In July 2004, a wholly-owned subsidiary
of Vector Tobacco completed the sale of its Timberlake, North
Carolina manufacturing facility along with all equipment to an
affiliate of the Flue-Cured Tobacco Cooperative Stabilization
Corporation for $25,800. In connection with the sale, the
subsidiary of Vector Tobacco entered into a consulting agreement
to provide certain services to the buyer for $400, all of which
has been recognized in 2004. Approximately $5,200 of the
proceeds from the sale were used to retire debt secured by the
Timberlake property.
Repurchase of Notes. In connection with an amendment to
the note purchase agreement for VGR Holdings 10% senior
secured notes due March 31, 2006, proceeds from the
Timberlake sale were used to repurchase $7,000 of the notes in
August 2004, at a price of 100% of the principal amount plus
accrued interest. In November 2004, the remaining $63,000 of the
notes were retired at par with the proceeds from our issuance of
convertible notes. The redemption price, together with accrued
interest, totaled approximately $65,170. We recognized a loss of
$5,333 in 2004 on the early extinguishment of debt.
Liggett Vector Brands Restructurings. Liggett Vector
Brands, as part of the continuing effort to adjust the cost
structure of our tobacco business and improve operating
efficiency, eliminated 83 positions during April 2004, sublet
its New York office space and relocated several employees. As a
result of these actions, we recognized pre-tax restructuring
charges of $2,735 in 2004, including $798 relating to employee
severance and benefit costs and $1,937 for contract termination
and other associated costs. Approximately $503 of these charges
represent non-cash items.
On October 6, 2004, we announced an additional plan to
restructure the operations of Liggett Vector Brands, our sales,
marketing and distribution agent for our Liggett and Vector
Tobacco subsidiaries. Liggett Vector Brands has realigned its
sales force and adjusted its business model to more efficiently
serve its chain and independent accounts nationwide. In
connection with the restructuring, we eliminated approximately
330 full-time positions and 135 part-time positions as of
December 15, 2004.
As a result of the actions announced in October 2004, we
currently expect to realize annual cost savings of approximately
$30,000 beginning in 2005. We recognized pre-tax restructuring
charges of $10,583 in 2004,
46
with $5,659 of the charges related to employee severance and
benefit costs and $4,924 to contract termination and other
associated costs. Approximately $2,503 of these charges
represented non-cash items. Additionally, we incurred other
charges in 2004 for various compensation and related payments to
employees which were related to the restructuring. These charges
of $1,670 were included in operating, selling, administrative
and general expenses.
Timberlake Restructuring. In October 2003, we announced
that we would close Vector Tobaccos Timberlake, North
Carolina cigarette manufacturing facility in order to reduce
excess cigarette production capacity and improve operating
efficiencies company-wide. Production of the QUEST line of low
nicotine and nicotine-free cigarettes, as well as production of
Vector Tobaccos other cigarette brands, has been moved to
Liggetts state-of-the-art manufacturing facility in
Mebane, North Carolina.
The Mebane facility currently produces approximately
9 billion units per year, but maintains the capacity to
produce approximately 16 billion units per year. Vector
Tobacco has contracted with Liggett to produce its cigarettes
and all production was transferred from Timberlake to Mebane by
December 31, 2003. As part of the transition, we eliminated
approximately 150 positions.
As a result of these actions, we recognized pre-tax
restructuring and impairment charges of $21,696, of which
$21,300 was recognized in 2003 and the remaining $396 was
recognized in 2004. Machinery and equipment to be disposed of
was reduced to estimated fair value less costs to sell during
2003.
We decreased the asset impairment accrual as of June 30,
2004 to reflect the actual amounts to be realized from the
Timberlake sale and to reduce the values of other excess Vector
Tobacco machinery and equipment in accordance with
SFAS No. 144. We further adjusted the previously
recorded restructuring accrual as of June 30, 2004 to
reflect additional employee severance and benefits, contract
termination and associated costs resulting from the Timberlake
sale. No charge to operations resulted from these adjustments as
there was no change to the total impairment and restructuring
charges previously recognized.
Annual cost savings related to the Timberlake restructuring and
impairment charges and the actions taken at Liggett Vector
Brands in the first half of 2004 were estimated to be at least
$23,000 beginning in 2004. Management believes the anticipated
annual cost savings have been achieved beginning in 2004.
Management will continue to review opportunities for additional
cost savings in our tobacco business.
Amended Liggett Credit Facility. In April 2004, Liggett
entered into an Amended and Restated Loan and Security Agreement
with Congress Financial Corporation, as lender. The $50,000
credit facility replaced Liggetts previous $40,000
facility with Congress. The facility is collateralized by all
inventories and receivables of Liggett and a first mortgage on
the Mebane, North Carolina plant and manufacturing equipment.
Tax Matters. In connection with the 1998 and 1999
transaction with Philip Morris Incorporated in which a
subsidiary of Liggett contributed three of its premium cigarette
brands to Trademarks LLC, a newly-formed limited liability
company, we recognized in 1999 a pre-tax gain of $294,078 in our
consolidated financial statements and established a deferred tax
liability of $103,100 relating to the gain. In such transaction,
Philip Morris acquired an option to purchase the remaining
interest in Trademarks for a 90-day period commencing in
December 2008, and we have an option to require Philip Morris to
purchase the remaining interest for a 90-day period commencing
in March 2010. Upon exercise of the options during the 90-day
periods commencing in December 2008 or in March 2010, we will be
required to pay tax in the amount of the deferred tax liability,
which will be offset by the benefit of any deferred tax assets,
including any net operating losses, available to us at that
time. In connection with an examination of our 1998 and 1999
federal income tax returns, the Internal Revenue Service issued
to us in September 2003 a notice of proposed adjustment. The
notice asserts that, for tax reporting purposes, the entire gain
should have been recognized in 1998 and in 1999 in the
additional amounts of $150,000 and $129,900, respectively,
rather than upon the exercise of the options during the 90-day
periods commencing in December 2008 or in March 2010. If the
Internal Revenue Service were to ultimately prevail with the
proposed adjustment, it would result in the potential
acceleration of tax payments of approximately $121,000,
including interest, net of tax benefits, through
December 31, 2004. These amounts have been previously
recognized in our consolidated financial
47
statements as tax liabilities. As of December 31, 2004, we
believe amounts potentially due have been fully provided for in
our consolidated statements of operations.
We believe the positions reflected on our income tax returns are
correct and intend to vigorously oppose any proposed adjustments
to our returns. We have filed a protest with the Appeals
Division of the Internal Revenue Service. No payment is due with
respect to these matters during the appeals process. Interest
currently is accruing on the disputed amounts at a rate of 7%,
with the rate adjusted quarterly based on rates published by the
U.S. Treasury Department. If taxing authorities were to
ultimately prevail in their assertion that we incurred a tax
obligation prior to the exercise dates of these options and we
were required to make such tax payments prior to 2009 or 2010,
and if any necessary financing were not available to us, our
liquidity could be materially adversely affected.
Real Estate Acquisitions. In December 2002, New Valley
purchased two office buildings in Princeton, New Jersey for a
total purchase price of $54,000. New Valley financed a portion
of the purchase price through a borrowing of $40,500 from HSBC
Realty Credit Corporation (USA). In February 2005, New Valley
completed the sale of the office buildings for $71,500. The
mortgage loan on the properties was retired at closing with the
proceeds of the sale.
Also in December 2002, New Valley and the other owners of
Prudential Douglas Elliman Real Estate, formerly known as
Prudential Long Island Realty, contributed their interests in
Prudential Douglas Elliman Real Estate to Douglas Elliman
Realty, formerly known as Montauk Battery Realty LLC, a newly
formed entity. New Valley acquired a 50% ownership interest in
Douglas Elliman Realty, an increase from its previous 37.2%
interest in Prudential Douglas Elliman Real Estate as a result
of an additional investment of $1,413 by New Valley and the
redemption by Prudential Douglas Elliman Real Estate of various
ownership interests.
In March 2003, Douglas Elliman Realty purchased the leading New
York City-based residential brokerage firm, Douglas Elliman,
LLC, formerly known as Insignia Douglas Elliman, and an
affiliated property management company for $71,250. With that
acquisition, the combination of Prudential Douglas Elliman Real
Estate with Douglas Elliman has created the largest residential
brokerage company in the New York metropolitan area. New Valley
invested an additional $9,500 in subordinated debt and equity of
Douglas Elliman Realty to help fund the acquisition. The
subordinated debt, which had an initial principal amount of
$9,500, bears interest at 12% per annum and is due in March 2013.
New Valley holds a 50% interest in Koa Investors LLC, the owner
of the Sheraton Keauhou Bay Resort & Spa in Kailua-Kona,
Hawaii. Following a major renovation, the property reopened in
the fourth quarter 2004 as a four star resort with approximately
525 rooms.
New Valley accounts for its 50% interests in Douglas Elliman
Realty and Koa Investors on the equity method.
Industry Data. The source of industry data in this report
is Management Science Associates, Inc., an independent
third-party database management organization that collects
wholesale shipment data from various cigarette manufacturers and
provides analysis of market share, unit sales volume and premium
versus discount mix for individual companies and the industry as
a whole. Management Science Associates information
relating to unit sales volume and market share of certain of the
smaller, primarily deep discount, cigarette manufacturers is
based on estimates developed by Management Science Associates.
Effective June 2004, Management Science Associates made three
changes in the information it reports as noted below and these
changes are reflected in the information presented in this
report:
|
|
|
|
|
Management Science Associates is now reporting actual units
shipped by Commonwealth Brands, Inc. |
|
|
|
Management Science Associates has implemented a new model for
estimating unit sales volume for certain of the smaller,
primarily deep discount cigarette manufacturers. |
|
|
|
Management Science Associates has restated volume and the
resulting effects on share of market from January 2001 forward. |
48
The effects of these changes are that total industry volume
increased based on new smaller manufacturer estimates and actual
reported volume for Commonwealth and, based on the revised
industry volume number, market shares for the major tobacco
companies, including Liggett, have been restated from January
2001 forward and will be lower. Under Management Science
Associates new method for computing market share, Liggett
and Vector Tobacco accounted for approximately 2.2% of the total
cigarettes shipped in the United States during 2001, 2.4% during
2002 and 2.5% during 2003, as compared to 2.2% during 2001, 2.5%
during 2002 and 2.7% during 2003 under the past method. Liggett
management continues to believe that the volume and market share
information published by Management Science Associates for
smaller manufacturers is understated and, correspondingly, share
information for the larger manufacturers, including Liggett, is
overstated by Management Science Associates.
Recent Developments in Legislation, Regulation and
Litigation
The cigarette industry continues to be challenged on numerous
fronts. New cases continue to be commenced against Liggett and
other cigarette manufacturers. As of December 31, 2004,
there were approximately 330 individual suits, 18 purported
class actions and 17 governmental and other third-party payor
health care reimbursement actions pending in the United States
in which Liggett was a named defendant. A civil lawsuit has been
filed by the United States federal government seeking
disgorgement of approximately $289,000,000 from various
cigarette manufacturers, including Liggett. A federal appellate
court ruled in February 2005 that disgorgement is not an
available remedy in the case. The government has stated it
intends to appeal. Trial of the case began on September 21,
2004 and is proceeding. In one of these cases, in 2000, an
action against cigarette manufacturers involving approximately
1,000 named individual plaintiffs was consolidated before a
single West Virginia state court. Liggett is a defendant in most
of the cases pending in West Virginia. In January 2002, the
court severed Liggett from the trial of the consolidated action.
Two purported class actions have been certified in state court
in Kansas and New Mexico against the cigarette manufacturers for
alleged antitrust violations. As new cases are commenced, the
costs associated with defending these cases and the risks
relating to the inherent unpredictability of litigation continue
to increase.
There are six individual actions where Liggett is the only
defendant, with trial in one of these cases currently scheduled
for March 2005 and trial in another scheduled for May 2005. In
April 2004, in one of these cases, a jury in a Florida state
court action awarded compensatory damages of $540 against
Liggett. In addition, plaintiffs counsel was awarded legal
fees of $752. Liggett has appealed the verdict. In February
2005, in another of these cases, a state court jury in Florida
returned a verdict in favor of Liggett. The plaintiffs
post-trial motion for a new trial is pending.
In May 2003, a Florida intermediate appellate court overturned a
$790,000 punitive damages award against Liggett and decertified
the Engle smoking and health class action. In May 2004,
the Florida Supreme Court agreed to review the case. Oral
argument was held in November 2004. If the intermediate
appellate courts ruling is not upheld on further appeal,
it will have a material adverse effect on us. In November 2000,
Liggett filed the $3,450 bond required under the bonding statute
enacted in 2000 by the Florida legislature which limits the size
of any bond required, pending appeal, to stay execution of a
punitive damages verdict. In May 2001, Liggett reached an
agreement with the class in the Engle case, which
provided assurance to Liggett that the stay of execution, in
effect under the Florida bonding statute, would not be lifted or
limited at any point until completion of all appeals, including
to the United States Supreme Court. As required by the
agreement, Liggett paid $6,273 into an escrow account to be held
for the benefit of the Engle class, and released, along
with Liggetts existing $3,450 statutory bond, to the court
for the benefit of the class upon completion of the appeals
process, regardless of the outcome of the appeal. In June 2002,
the jury in an individual case brought under the third phase of
the Engle case awarded $37,500 (subsequently reduced by
the court to $25,100) of compensatory damages against Liggett
and two other defendants and found Liggett 50% responsible for
the damages. The verdict, which is subject to the outcome of the
Engle appeal, has been overturned as a result of the
appellate courts ruling discussed above. It is possible
that additional cases could be decided unfavorably and that
there could be further adverse developments in the Engle
case. Liggett may enter into discussions in an attempt to
settle particular cases if it believes it is appropriate to do
so.
49
Management cannot predict the cash requirements related to any
future settlements and judgments, including cash required to
bond any appeals, and there is a risk that those requirements
will not be able to be met.
Federal or state regulators may object to Vector Tobaccos
low nicotine and nicotine-free cigarette products and reduced
risk cigarette products it may develop as unlawful or allege
they bear deceptive or unsubstantiated product claims, and seek
the removal of the products from the marketplace, or significant
changes to advertising. Various concerns regarding Vector
Tobaccos advertising practices have been expressed to
Vector Tobacco by certain state attorneys general. Vector
Tobacco has engaged in discussions in an effort to resolve these
concerns and Vector Tobacco has recently agreed to suspend all
print advertising for its QUEST brand while discussions are
pending. If Vector Tobacco is unable to advertise its QUEST
brand, it could have a material adverse effect on sales of
QUEST. Allegations by federal or state regulators, public health
organizations and other tobacco manufacturers that Vector
Tobaccos products are unlawful, or that its public
statements or advertising contain misleading or unsubstantiated
health claims or product comparisons, may result in litigation
or governmental proceedings.
In recent years, there have been a number of restrictive
regulatory actions from various Federal administrative bodies,
including the United States Environmental Protection Agency and
the Food and Drug Administration. There have also been adverse
political decisions and other unfavorable developments
concerning cigarette smoking and the tobacco industry, including
the commencement and certification of class actions and the
commencement of third-party payor actions. These developments
generally receive widespread media attention. We are not able to
evaluate the effect of these developing matters on pending
litigation or the possible commencement of additional
litigation, but our consolidated financial position, results of
operations or cash flows could be materially adversely affected
by an unfavorable outcome in any smoking-related litigation. See
Note 15 to our consolidated financial statements for a
description of legislation, regulation and litigation.
Critical Accounting Policies
General. The preparation of financial statements in
conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the
United States of America requires management to make estimates
and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and
liabilities, disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities and
the reported amounts of revenues and expenses. Significant
estimates subject to material changes in the near term include
restructuring and impairment charges, inventory valuation,
deferred tax assets, allowance for doubtful accounts,
promotional accruals, sales returns and allowances, actuarial
assumptions of pension plans, embedded derivative liability,
settlement accruals and litigation and defense costs. Actual
results could differ from those estimates.
Revenue Recognition. Revenues from sales of cigarettes
are recognized upon the shipment of finished goods to the
customer, there is persuasive evidence of an arrangement, the
sale price is determinable and collectibility is reasonably
assured. We provide an allowance for expected sales returns, net
of related inventory cost recoveries. Since our primary line of
business is tobacco, our financial position and our results of
operations and cash flows have been and could continue to be
materially adversely effected by significant unit sales volume
declines, litigation and defense costs, increased tobacco costs
or reductions in the selling price of cigarettes in the near
term.
Marketing Costs. We record marketing costs as an expense
in the period to which such costs relate. We do not defer the
recognition of any amounts on our consolidated balance sheets
with respect to marketing costs. We expense advertising costs as
incurred, which is the period in which the related advertisement
initially appears. We record consumer incentive and trade
promotion costs as a reduction in revenue in the period in which
these programs are offered, based on estimates of utilization
and redemption rates that are developed from historical
information.
Restructuring and Asset Impairment Charges. We have
recorded charges related to employee severance and benefits,
asset impairments, contract termination and other associated
exit costs during 2002, 2003 and 2004. The calculation of
severance pay requires management to identify employees to be
terminated and the timing of their severance from employment.
The calculation of benefits charges requires actuarial
assumptions including determination of discount rates. As
discussed further below, the asset impairments were recorded in
50
accordance with SFAS No. 144, Accounting for the
Impairment or Disposal of Long-Lived Assets, which
requires management to estimate the fair value of assets to be
disposed of. On January 1, 2003, we adopted
SFAS No. 146, Accounting for Costs Associated
with Exit or Disposal Activities. Charges related to
restructuring activities initiated after this date were recorded
when incurred. Prior to this date, charges were recorded at the
date of an entitys commitment to an exit plan in
accordance with EITF 94-3, Liability Recognition for
Certain Employee Termination Benefits and Other Costs to Exit an
Activity (including Certain Costs Incurred in a
Restructuring). These restructuring charges are based on
managements best estimate at the time of restructuring.
The status of the restructuring activities is reviewed on a
quarterly basis and any adjustments to the reserve, which could
differ materially from previous estimates, are recorded as an
adjustment to operating income.
Impairment of Long-Lived Assets. We evaluate our
long-lived assets for possible impairment whenever events or
changes in circumstances indicate that the carrying value of the
asset, or related group of assets, may not be fully recoverable.
Examples of such events or changes in circumstances include a
significant adverse charge in the manner in which a long-lived
asset, or group of assets, is being used or a current
expectation that, more likely than not, a long-lived asset, or
group of assets, will be disposed of before the end of its
estimated useful life. The estimate of fair value of our
long-lived assets is based on the best information available,
including prices for similar assets and the results of using
other valuation techniques. Since judgment is involved in
determining the fair value of long-lived assets, there is a risk
that the carrying value of our long-lived assets may be
overstated or understated.
In October 2003, we announced that we would close Vector
Tobaccos Timberlake, North Carolina cigarette
manufacturing facility and produce its cigarette products at
Liggetts Mebane, North Carolina facility. We evaluated the
net realizable value of the long-lived assets located at the
Timberlake facility which is no longer used in operations. Based
on managements estimates of the values, we initially
recognized non-cash asset impairment charges of $18,752 in the
third quarter of 2003 on machinery and equipment. As of
June 30, 2004, we decreased the asset impairment accrual to
reflect the actual amounts to be realized from the Timberlake
sale and to reduce values of other excess machinery and
equipment in accordance with SFAS No. 144.
Contingencies. We record Liggetts product liability
legal expenses and other litigation costs as operating, selling,
general and administrative expenses as those costs are incurred.
As discussed in Note 15 of our consolidated financial
statements and above under the heading Recent Developments
in Legislation, Regulation and Litigation, legal
proceedings covering a wide range of matters are pending or
threatened in various jurisdictions against Liggett. Management
is unable to make a meaningful estimate with respect to the
amount or range of loss that could result from an unfavorable
outcome of pending smoking-related litigation or the costs of
defending such cases, and we have not provided any amounts in
our consolidated financial statements for unfavorable outcomes,
if any. Litigation is subject to many uncertainties, and it is
possible that our consolidated financial position, results of
operations or cash flows could be materially adversely affected
by an unfavorable outcome in any such smoking-related litigation.
Settlement Agreements. As discussed in Note 15 to
our consolidated financial statements, Liggett and Vector
Tobacco are participants in the Master Settlement Agreement, the
1998 agreement to settle governmental healthcare cost recovery
actions brought by various states. Liggett and Vector Tobacco
have no payment obligations under the Master Settlement
Agreement except to the extent their market shares exceed
approximately 1.65% and 0.28%, respectively, of total cigarettes
sold in the United States. Their obligations, and the related
expense charges under the Master Settlement Agreement, are
subject to adjustments based upon, among other things, the
volume of cigarettes sold by Liggett and Vector Tobacco, their
relative market shares and inflation. Since relative market
shares are based on cigarette shipments, the best estimate of
the allocation of charges under the Master Settlement Agreement
is recorded in cost of goods sold as the products are shipped.
Settlement expenses under the Master Settlement Agreement
recorded in the accompanying consolidated statements of
operations were $23,315 for 2004, $35,854 for 2003 and $35,412
for 2002. Adjustments to these estimates are recorded in the
period that the change becomes probable and the amount can be
reasonably estimated.
51
Derivatives; Beneficial Conversion Feature. We measure
all derivatives, including certain derivatives embedded in other
contracts, at fair value and recognize them in the consolidated
balance sheet as an asset or a liability, depending on our
rights and obligations under the applicable derivative contract.
In November 2004, we issued in a private placement 5% variable
interest senior convertible notes due 2011 where a portion of
the total interest payable on the notes is computed by reference
to the cash dividends paid on our common stock. This portion of
the interest payment is considered an embedded derivative.
Pursuant to SFAS No. 133, Accounting for
Derivative Instruments and Hedging Activities, as amended
by SFAS No. 138, Accounting for Certain Derivative
Instruments and Certain Hedging Activities, we have
bifurcated this dividend portion of the interest on the notes
and, based on a valuation by an independent third party,
estimated the fair value of the embedded derivative liability.
At issuance of the notes, the estimated initial fair value of
the embedded derivative liability was $24,738, which was
recorded as a discount to the notes and is classified as a
derivative liability on the consolidated balance sheet. At
December 31, 2004, with the issuance of $1,405 of
additional notes, the derivative liability was estimated at
$25,686. Changes to the fair value of this embedded derivative
are reflected quarterly as an adjustment to interest expense.
After giving effect to the recording of the embedded derivative
liability as a discount to the notes, the Companys common
stock had a fair value at the issuance date of the notes in
excess of the conversion price resulting in a beneficial
conversion feature. Emerging Issues Task Force
(EITF) No. 98-5, Accounting for Convertible
Securities with Beneficial Conversion Features or Contingently
Adjustable Convertible Ratios, requires that the intrinsic
value of the beneficial conversion feature ($13,625 on the
issuance dates) be recorded to additional paid-in capital and as
a discount on the notes. The discount is then amortized to
interest expense over the term of the notes using the effective
interest rate method. The Company recognized non-cash interest
expense in 2004 of $247 due to the amortization of the debt
discount attributable to the beneficial conversion feature.
Inventories. Tobacco inventories are stated at lower of
cost or market and are determined primarily by the last-in,
first-out (LIFO) method at Liggett and the first-in,
first-out (FIFO) method at Vector Tobacco. Although
portions of leaf tobacco inventories may not be used or sold
within one year because of time required for aging, they are
included in current assets, which is common practice in the
industry. We estimate an inventory reserve for excess quantities
and obsolete items based on specific identification and
historical write-offs, taking into account future demand and
market conditions. At December 31, 2004, approximately
$1,595 of our inventory was associated with Vector
Tobaccos QUEST product. During the second quarter of 2004,
we recognized a non-cash charge of $37,000 to adjust the
carrying value of excess leaf tobacco inventory for the QUEST
product, based on estimates of future demand and market
conditions. If actual demand for the product or market
conditions are less favorable than those estimated, additional
inventory write-downs may be required.
Employee Benefit Plans. Since 1997, income from our
defined benefit pension plans, partially offset by the costs of
postretirement medical and life insurance benefits, have
contributed to our reported operating income up to and including
2002. The determination of our net pension and other
postretirement benefit income or expense is dependent on our
selection of certain assumptions used by actuaries in
calculating such amounts. Those assumptions include, among
others, the discount rate, expected long-term rate of return on
plan assets and rates of increase in compensation and healthcare
costs. In accordance with accounting principles generally
accepted in the United States of America, actual results that
differ from our assumptions are accumulated and amortized over
future periods and therefore, generally affect our recognized
income or expense in such future periods. While we believe that
our assumptions are appropriate, significant differences in our
actual experience or significant changes in our assumptions may
materially affect our future net pension and other
postretirement benefit income or expense.
Net pension expense for defined benefit pension plans and other
postretirement benefit expense aggregated approximately $4,500
for 2004, and we currently anticipate such expense will be
approximately $4,250 for 2005. In contrast, our funding
obligations under the pension plans are governed by ERISA. To
comply with ERISAs minimum funding requirements, we do not
currently anticipate that we will be required to make any
funding to the pension plans for the pension plan year beginning
on January 1, 2005 and ending
52
on December 31, 2005. Any additional funding obligation
that we may have for subsequent years is contingent on several
factors and is not reasonably estimable at this time.
Results of Operations
The following discussion provides an assessment of our results
of operations, capital resources and liquidity and should be
read in conjunction with our consolidated financial statements
and related notes included elsewhere in this report. The
consolidated financial statements include the accounts of VGR
Holding, Liggett, Vector Tobacco, Liggett Vector Brands, New
Valley and other less significant subsidiaries. Our interest in
New Valleys common shares was 58.2% at December 31,
2004.
For purposes of this discussion and other consolidated financial
reporting, our significant business segments for each of the
three years ended December 31, 2004 were Liggett, Vector
Tobacco and real estate. The Liggett segment consists of the
manufacture and sale of conventional cigarettes and, for segment
reporting purposes, includes the operations of Medallion
acquired on April 1, 2002 (which operations are held for
legal purposes as part of Vector Tobacco). The Vector Tobacco
segment includes the development and marketing of the low
nicotine and nicotine-free cigarette products as well as the
development of reduced risk cigarette products and, for segment
reporting purposes, excludes the operations of Medallion.
|
|
|
2004 compared to 2003 and 2003 compared to 2002 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For the Year Ended December 31, | |
|
|
| |
|
|
2004 | |
|
2003 | |
|
2002 | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
(Dollars in thousands) | |
Revenues:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Liggett
|
|
$ |
484,898 |
|
|
$ |
503,231 |
|
|
$ |
494,975 |
|
|
Vector Tobacco
|
|
|
13,962 |
|
|
|
26,154 |
|
|
|
7,442 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total tobacco
|
|
|
498,860 |
|
|
|
529,385 |
|
|
|
502,417 |
|
|
|
Real estate
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
661 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total revenues
|
|
$ |
498,860 |
|
|
$ |
529,385 |
|
|
$ |
503,078 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating income (loss):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Liggett
|
|
$ |
110,675 |
(1) |
|
$ |
119,749 |
|
|
$ |
102,718 |
(3) |
|
Vector Tobacco
|
|
|
(64,942 |
)(1) |
|
|
(92,825 |
)(2) |
|
|
(88,159 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total tobacco
|
|
|
45,733 |
|
|
|
26,924 |
|
|
|
14,559 |
|
|
|
Real estate
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(763 |
) |
|
Corporate and other
|
|
|
(30,286 |
) |
|
|
(26,434 |
) |
|
|
(32,688 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total operating income (loss)
|
|
$ |
15,447 |
(1) |
|
$ |
490 |
(2) |
|
$ |
(18,892 |
)(3) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
Includes restructuring and impairment charges of $11,075 at
Liggett and $2,624 at Vector Tobacco and a $37,000 inventory
impairment charge at Vector Tobacco in 2004. |
|
(2) |
Includes restructuring and impairment charges of $21,300 in 2003. |
|
(3) |
Includes restructuring charges of $3,460 in 2002. |
Revenues. Total revenues were $498,860 for the year ended
December 31, 2004 compared to $529,385 for the year ended
December 31, 2003. This 5.8% ($30,525) decrease in revenues
was due to an $18,333 or 3.6% decrease in revenues at Liggett
and a $12,192 or 46.6% decrease in revenues at Vector Tobacco.
Tobacco Revenues. In February 2003, Liggett increased its
net sales price for selected discount brands by $.80 per
carton. In May 2003, Liggett increased its list price on USA by
$.50 per carton. In June 2003, Liggett increased its net
sales price for LIGGETT SELECT by $1.10 per carton. In
September 2003, Liggett increased its net sales price for
PYRAMID by $.95 per carton. In December 2003, Liggett
increased the list price on a leading private label brand by
$.85 per carton. In August 2004, Liggett increased its net
sales price
53
of LIGGETT SELECT by $1.00 per carton. In October 2004,
Liggett increased the list price of all its brands by
$.65 per carton.
Effective February 1, 2004, Liggett reduced the list prices
for EVE and JADE from the premium price level to the branded
discount level, in the case of EVE, and the deep discount level,
in the case of JADE. During 2003, EVE product had been subject
to promotional buy-downs at the retail level and was effectively
promoted to consumers at a level that is fully reflected in the
new reduced list price. During 2003, the net list price for JADE
was at the deep discount level after giving effect to
off-invoice promotional spending. In August 2004, the list price
for JADE was increased by $1.35 per carton.
All of Liggetts sales in 2004 were in the discount
category. In 2004, net sales at Liggett totaled $484,898,
compared to $503,231 in 2003. Revenues decreased by 3.6%
($18,333) due to an 8.6% decrease in unit sales volume
(approximately 833 million units) accounting for $43,288 in
unfavorable volume variance and $1,018 in unfavorable sales mix
partially offset by a combination of list price increases and
reduced promotional spending of $25,973. The favorable price
variance of $25,973 in 2004 gives effect to approximately $1,400
of costs associated with the buy down of unpromoted EVE
inventory at retail due to the price reduction discussed above.
Net revenues of the LIGGETT SELECT brand increased $17,513 in
2004 compared to in 2003, and its unit volume increased 0.2% in
2004 compared to 2003.
Revenues at Vector Tobacco were $13,962 in 2004 compared to
$26,154 in 2003, a 46.6% decline, due to decreased sales volume.
Vector Tobaccos revenues in both years related primarily
to sales of QUEST. Given market place conditions, and the
results we have seen to date with QUEST, we have taken a
measured approach to expanding the market presence of the brand.
Tobacco Gross Profit. Tobacco gross profit excluding the
inventory write-down at Vector Tobacco of $37,000 in the second
quarter was $210,197 in 2004 compared to $189,768 in 2003, an
increase of $20,429 or 10.8% when compared to last year, due
primarily to the reduction in promotional spending, price
increases discussed above at Liggett and lower estimated Master
Settlement Agreement expense at Liggett and Vector Tobacco.
Liggetts brands contributed 97.9% to our tobacco gross
profit and Vector Tobacco contributed 2.1% in 2004. In 2003,
Liggett brands contributed 104.7% to our gross profit and Vector
Tobaccos brands cost 4.7%.
Liggetts gross profit of $205,814 in 2004 increased $7,585
from gross profit of $198,229 in 2003. As a percent of revenues
(excluding federal excise taxes), gross profit at Liggett
increased to 66.2% in 2004 compared to 63.1% in 2003. This
increase in Liggetts gross profit in 2004 was attributable
to the items discussed above.
Vector Tobaccos gross profit, excluding the inventory
write-down, was $4,383 in 2004 compared to negative gross profit
of $8,879 in 2003. The increase was due to the cost savings
realized with the closing of Vector Tobaccos Timberlake
facility and the transfer of production, commencing
January 1, 2004, to Liggetts facility in Mebane, as
well as decreased promotional expense.
Expenses. Operating, selling, general and administrative
expenses, net of restructuring charges, were $144,051 in 2004
compared to $167,978, a decrease of $23,927. The effects of the
restructurings were offset by a charge in 2004 of $4,177 (net of
minority interests) in connection with the settlement of the
shareholder derivative lawsuit. Expenses at Liggett were $84,064
in 2004 compared to $78,480, an increase of $5,584 in 2004. The
increase in 2004 was due primarily to increased selling,
marketing and administrative expenses allocated from Liggett
Vector Brands of $12,388 and $1,670 of various additional
compensation payments made to retained employees which were
related to the Liggett Vector Brands restructuring, offset by a
decrease in sales and marketing research costs and point of
sales material and distribution costs of $6,040 and a decrease
in product liability legal expenses and other litigation costs
of $1,012. Liggetts product liability legal expenses and
other litigation costs were $5,110 in 2004 compared to $6,122 in
2003. Expenses at Vector Tobacco in 2004 were $29,702 compared
to expenses of $83,946 in 2003, a decrease of $54,244, due to
the closing and sale of the Timberlake facility, related
reduction in headcount and reduced expense allocation from
Liggett Vector Brands. Effective January 1, 2004, we
modified the allocations of the selling, marketing and
administrative expenses of Liggett Vector Brands to Liggett and
Vector Tobacco based on a review of relative business
activities. Accordingly, in 2004, the increased selling,
marketing and administrative expenses
54
allocated to Liggett of $12,388 had a corresponding decrease in
such expenses at Vector Tobacco compared to the allocation of
these expenses between the segments during in 2003. These
modifications did not affect the consolidated financial
statements.
The operating, selling, general and administrative expenses
above are net of restructuring charges of $13,699 and an
inventory impairment charge of $37,000 in 2004. The
restructuring charges relate to the closing of the Timberlake
facility, the loss on the sublease of Liggett Vector
Brands New York office space and the Liggett Vector
Brands restructurings. Liggett recognized $11,075 in
restructuring charges and Vector Tobacco recognized $2,624 in
addition to the inventory impairment. Restructuring and
impairment charges in 2003 were $21,300 and related to the
closing of Vector Tobaccos Timberlake facility.
In 2004, Liggetts operating income decreased to $110,675
compared to $119,749 for the prior year due primarily to lower
sales volume and the restructuring charges of $11,075. Vector
Tobaccos operating loss which included the second quarter
inventory impairment charge of $37,000 and restructuring charges
of $2,624 was $64,942 in 2004 compared to a loss of $92,825 in
2003, which included the restructuring charge of $21,300 for the
closing of the Timberlake facility.
Other Income (Expenses). In 2004, other income
(expenses) was a loss of $9,341 compared to a loss of
$20,264 in 2003. In 2004, interest expense of $25,077 and loss
on extinguishment of debt of $5,333 were offset by equity income
from non-consolidated New Valley real estate businesses of
$9,782, a gain on sale of investments of $8,664 and interest and
dividend income of $2,563. The equity income resulted from
income at New Valley of $11,612 from Douglas Elliman Realty, LLC
offset by a loss of $1,830 related to New Valleys
investment in Koa Investors, LLC, which owns the Sheraton
Keauhou Bay Resort and Spa in Kailua-Kona, Hawaii. In 2003,
interest expense of $26,592 and a loss on extinguishment of debt
of $1,721 were offset by interest and dividend income of $4,696,
a gain on sale of investments of $1,955, equity income from
non-consolidated real estate businesses of $901 and a gain on
sale of assets of $478.
Income (Loss) from Continuing Operations. The income from
continuing operations before income taxes and minority interests
in 2004 was $6,106 compared to a loss of $19,774 for in 2003.
Income tax benefit was $6,960 and minority interests in income
of subsidiaries was $9,027 in 2004. This compared to a tax
benefit of $666 and minority interests in losses of subsidiaries
of $2,976 in 2003. The effective tax rates for the years ended
December 31, 2004 and 2003 do not bear a customary
relationship to pre-tax accounting income principally as a
consequence of changes in New Valleys valuation allowance,
which resulted in the recognition of $9,000 of deferred tax
assets at December 31, 2004, the intraperiod tax allocation
between income from continuing operations and discontinued
operations, non-deductible expenses and state income taxes.
Significant Fourth Quarter 2004 Adjustments. Fourth
quarter 2004 income from continuing operations included $6,155
restructuring charge related to Liggett Vector Brands, $4,177
charge (net of minority interests) for settlement of shareholder
derivative suit and $4,694 loss on extinguishment of debt
related to retirement of VGR Holdings senior secured
notes. Fourth quarter 2004 income from discontinued operations
included a $2,231 gain (net of minority interests of $2,478 and
income taxes of $5,272) from the reversal of tax and bankruptcy
accruals previously established by New Valley following
resolution of these matters.
Revenues. Total revenues were $529,385 for the year ended
December 31, 2003 compared to $503,078 for the year ended
December 31, 2002. This 5.2% ($26,307) increase in revenues
was primarily due to a $8,256 or 1.7% increase in revenues at
Liggett and an $18,712 increase in revenues at Vector Tobacco.
Tobacco Revenues. In April 2002, the major manufacturers
announced list price increases of $1.20 per carton. Liggett
matched the increase on its premium brands only. In July 2002,
Liggett announced a list price increase of $.60 per carton
on LIGGETT SELECT. In December 2002, Liggett announced a list
price increase of $.80 per carton on LIGGETT SELECT. In
February 2003, Liggett increased its net sales price for other
selected discount brands by $.80 per carton. In May 2003,
Liggett increased its list price on USA by $.50 per carton.
In June 2003, Liggett increased its list price for LIGGETT
SELECT by $1.10 per carton. In September 2003, Liggett
increased its net sales price for PYRAMID by $.95 per
carton.
55
For the year ended December 31, 2003, net sales at Liggett
totaled $503,231, compared to $494,975 for the year ended
December 31, 2002. Revenues increased by 1.7% ($8,256) due
to list price increases net of promotional spending of $13,423
and a favorable sales mix of $1,749 offset by a 1.4% decrease in
unit sales volume (approximately 137 million units)
accounting for $6,916 in unfavorable volume variance. Revenues
at Vector Tobacco in 2003 were $26,154 and related primarily to
sales of QUEST compared to revenues of $7,442, which related
primarily to sales of OMNI, in 2002.
Premium sales at Liggett in 2003 amounted to $31,184 and
represented 6.2% of total Liggett sales, compared to $44,621 and
9.0% of total sales for 2002. In the premium segment, revenues
decreased by 30.1% ($13,437) for the year ended
December 31, 2003 compared to 2002, due to an unfavorable
price variance of $10,179, primarily associated with promotional
activities, and an unfavorable volume variance of $3,258,
reflecting a 7.3% decrease in unit sales volume (approximately
41 million units).
The decline in Liggetts premium sales revenue during the
2002 and 2003 periods reflects both the decrease in sales volume
of premium-priced cigarettes and increased promotional spending
on premium brands driven primarily by weak economic conditions,
substantial excise tax increases in many states, and significant
promotional and pricing activity from the major
U.S. cigarette manufacturers. Also impacting the decline in
net revenues was the shift from significant free goods activity
in 2002 (recorded in cost of goods sold) to other promotional
activity recorded as a reduction of revenue in 2003.
Discount sales at Liggett (comprising the brand categories of
branded discount, private label, control label, generic,
international and contract manufacturing) in 2003 amounted to
$472,047 and represented 93.8% of total Liggett sales, compared
to $450,354 and 91.0% of total Liggett sales for 2002. In the
discount segment, revenues grew by 4.8% ($21,693) for the year
ended December 31, 2003 compared to 2002, due to net price
increases of $23,602 and to a favorable product mix among the
discount brand categories of $2,767 partially offset by a 1.0%
decrease in unit sales volume (approximately 96.1 million
units) accounting for $4,676 in unfavorable volume variances.
Net sales of the LIGGETT SELECT brand increased $54,401 in 2003
over net sales for 2002, and its unit volume increased 19.2% in
2003 compared to 2002.
Tobacco Gross Profit. Tobacco gross profit was $189,768
for the year ended December 31, 2003 compared to $157,795
for the year ended December 31, 2002, an increase of
$31,973 or 20.3% when compared to last year, due primarily to
the price increases discussed above at Liggett and increased
sales and reduced costs associated with the operations of Vector
Tobacco. Liggetts brands contributed 104.7% to our gross
profit, and Vector Tobacco cost 4.7% for the year ended
December 31, 2003. In 2002, Liggett brands contributed
112.3% to our gross profit and Vector Tobacco cost 12.3%.
Liggetts gross profit of $198,229 for the year ended
December 31, 2003 increased $20,998 from gross profit of
$177,231 in 2002. As a percent of revenues (excluding federal
excise taxes), gross profit at Liggett increased to 63.1% for
the year ended December 31, 2003 compared to 58.3% for
2002, with gross profit for the premium segment increasing to
56.6% for the year ended December 31, 2003 compared to
45.0% for 2002 and gross profit for the discount segment
increasing to 63.5% in 2003 from 59.9% in 2002. This increase in
Liggetts gross profit in 2003 is due to an increase in
revenues, lower excise taxes due to reduced unit sales and
reduced cost of goods sold due to decreased use of free
promotional product.
Vector Tobacco had negative gross profit of $8,879 for 2003 and
$19,436 for 2002. The negative gross profit reflected
significant initial promotional costs associated with the QUEST
launch in 2003 and the OMNI launch in 2002. The negative gross
profit in both years also reflected costs associated with excess
manufacturing capacity at Vector Tobaccos Timberlake
facility and various inventory charges.
Expenses. Operating, selling, general and administrative
expenses were $167,978 for the year ended December 31, 2003
compared to $173,888 for the prior year. Expenses at Liggett
were $78,480 for the year ended December 31, 2003 compared
to $74,513 for the prior year, an increase of $3,967, due
primarily to a larger sales force with the formation of Liggett
Vector Brands as well as increased depreciation expenses related
to equipment upgrades at Liggetts Mebane, North Carolina
facility and increased legal, marketing and pension expenses.
Operating expenses at Liggett include Liggetts product
liability legal expenses and other litigation costs of $6,122 in
2003 compared with $4,931 in 2002. Expenses at Vector Tobacco
for the
56
year ended December 31, 2003 were $83,946 including the
restructuring and impairment charges of $21,300, compared to
expenses of $68,723 for the prior year. These expenses are net
of restructuring and impairment charges of $21,300 at Vector
Tobacco taken in 2003 and restructuring charges of $3,460 at
Liggett taken in 2002.
For the year ended December 31, 2003, Liggetts
operating income increased to $119,749 compared to $102,718 in
2002 due primarily to the higher gross profit discussed above
and the $3,460 restructuring charge in 2002. Vector
Tobaccos operating loss, including the restructuring and
impairment charges of $21,300 in 2003, was $92,825 compared to
$88,159 in 2002.
Other Income (Expenses). For the year ended
December 31, 2003, other income (expenses) was a loss
of $20,264 compared to a loss of $28,882 for the year ended
December 31, 2002. In 2003, interest expense of $26,592 and
a loss on extinguishment of debt of $1,721 were offset by
interest and dividend income of $4,696, a gain on sale of
investments of $1,955, equity income from non-consolidated New
Valley real estate businesses of $901 and a gain on sale of
assets of $478. In 2002, interest expense of $26,433, a loss on
extinguishment of debt of $1,320, a provision for
uncollectibility of notes receivable at New Valley of $13,198, a
loss in equity income of non-consolidated real estate business
of $749 and a loss on investments of $6,240 were offset by
interest and dividend income of $10,071 and a gain on sale of
assets of $9,097, which included $8,484 related to the gain on
the sale of BrookeMil in April 2002 by New Valley.
Loss from Continuing Operations. The loss from continuing
operations before income taxes and minority interests for the
year ended December 31, 2003 was $19,774 compared to a loss
of $47,774 for the year ended December 31, 2002. Income
taxes were a benefit of $666 and minority interests in losses of
subsidiaries were $2,976 for the year ended December 31,
2003. This compared to income tax benefit of $6,393 and minority
interests in losses of subsidiaries of $9,562 for the year ended
December 31, 2002. The effective tax rates for the years
ended December 31, 2003 and December 31, 2002 do not
bear a customary relationship to pre-tax accounting income
principally as a consequence of non-deductible expenses, state
income taxes and the intraperiod tax allocation between income
from continuing operations and discontinued operations.
Discontinued Operations
Real Estate Leasing. In February 2005, New Valley
completed the sale for $71,500 of its two office buildings in
Princeton, N.J. As a result of the sale, the consolidated
financial statements of the Company reflect New Valleys
real estate leasing operations as discontinued operations for
the three years ended December 31, 2004. Accordingly,
revenues, costs and expenses, and cash flows of the discontinued
operations have been excluded from the respective captions in
the consolidated statements of operations and consolidated
statements of cash flows. The net operating results of the
discontinued operations have been reported, net of applicable
income taxes and minority interests, as Income from
discontinued operations, and the net cash flows of these
entities have been reported as Net cash provided by (used
in) discontinued operations. The assets of the
discontinued operations have been recorded as Assets held
for sale in the consolidated balance sheets at
December 31, 2004.
Summarized operating results of the discontinued real estate
leasing operations for the three years ended December 31,
2004 are as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2004 | |
|
2003 | |
|
2002 | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
Revenues
|
|
$ |
7,333 |
|
|
$ |
7,298 |
|
|
$ |
340 |
|
Expenses
|
|
|
5,240 |
|
|
|
4,952 |
|
|
|
227 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income from operations before income taxes and minority interests
|
|
|
2,093 |
|
|
|
2,346 |
|
|
|
113 |
|
Provision for income taxes
|
|
|
1,125 |
|
|
|
1,240 |
|
|
|
60 |
|
Minority interests
|
|
|
510 |
|
|
|
584 |
|
|
|
28 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income from discontinued operations
|
|
$ |
458 |
|
|
$ |
522 |
|
|
$ |
25 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
57
Gain on Disposal of Discontinued Operations. New Valley
recorded a gain on disposal of discontinued operations of $2,231
(net of minority interests of $2,478 and income taxes of $5,272)
for the year ended December 31, 2004 related to the
adjustment of accruals established during New Valleys
bankruptcy proceedings in 1993 and 1994. The reversal of these
accruals reduced various tax accruals previously established and
were made due to the completion of settlements related to these
matters. The adjustment of these accruals is classified as gain
on disposal of discontinued operations since the original
establishment of such accruals was similarly classified as a
reduction of gain on disposal of discontinued operations.
Liquidity and Capital Resources
Net cash and cash equivalents increased $35,196 in 2004 and
decreased $25,219 in 2003 and $117,734 in 2002.
Net cash provided by operations was $42,879 in 2004 and $14,015
in 2003 with net cash used of $11,638 in 2002. Cash provided by
operations in 2004 resulted primarily from non-cash charges for
depreciation and amortization expense, restructuring and
impairment charges, loss on retirement of debt and effect of
minority interests, offset by the payment of the Master
Settlement Agreement expense for 2003 in April of 2004, a
decrease in current liabilities, the non-cash gain on investment
securities and equity income from non-consolidated real estate
businesses. Net cash provided in 2003 resulted from non-cash
charges for depreciation and amortization expense,
restructuring, stock-based expense and non-cash interest
expense, a decrease in receivables and an increase in accounts
payable and accrued liabilities and other assets and
liabilities. These were offset primarily by an increase in
inventories as well as deferred income taxes and the effect from
minority interests. Net cash used in operations for 2002
resulted primarily from a net loss of $31,794 due to increased
operating losses at Vector Tobacco and marketing promotions at
Liggett. In addition, there was an increase in inventories,
partially offset by a decrease in accounts receivable and an
increase in current liabilities. Further, in 2002, there was the
non-cash impact of depreciation and amortization, stock-based
expense, restructuring charges, provision for loss on
investments and provision for uncollectibility of notes
receivable offset by minority interests, gain on sale of
investments and a change in current taxes.
Cash provided by investing activities was $72,653 in 2004 and
$48,844 in 2003 with cash used of $39,365 in 2002. In 2004, cash
was provided primarily through the sale or maturity of
investment securities for $68,357, the sale of assets for
$25,713 and the decrease in restricted cash of $1,157. This was
partially offset primarily by the purchase of investment
securities for $12,197, investment in non-consolidated real
estate businesses at New Valley of $4,500 and capital
expenditures of $4,294. In 2003, cash was provided principally
through the sale or maturity of investment securities for
$135,737 offset primarily by the purchase of investment
securities of $68,978, the investment by New Valley of $9,500 in
Douglas Elliman Realty and $1,500 in KOA Investors and capital
expenditures principally at Liggett of $8,894. In 2002, cash was
used principally for a portion ($50,000) of the purchase price
of Medallion and the purchase of machinery and equipment
principally by Liggett and Vector Tobacco of $35,941. In
addition, there was the issuance of a note receivable at New
Valley for $4,000. These expenditures were offset primarily by
net proceeds of $18,798 received from the sale of real estate
and the net sale or maturity of investment securities of $36,700.
Cash used in financing activities was $81,422 in 2004, $90,658
in 2003 and $52,489 in 2002. In 2004, cash was used for
dividends of $64,106 and repayments on debt of $84,425,
including $70,000 of VGR Holdings 10% senior secured
notes. These were offset by the proceeds from the sale of
convertible notes of $66,905 and proceeds from the exercise of
options of $3,233. In 2003, cash was used principally for
distributions on common stock of $59,997 and repayments of debt
of $31,064, including $12,000 of VGR Holdings
10% senior secured notes, $12,500 of the Medallion notes
and $6,564 in various other notes. In 2002, cash was used
primarily for dividends of $54,477 and repayments of debt of
$23,338 offset by proceeds from debt of $37,635 and proceeds
from the exercise of options of $2,957.
Liggett. In April 2004, Liggett entered into an Amended
and Restated Loan and Security Agreement with Congress Financial
Corporation, as lender. The $50,000 credit facility replaced
Liggetts previous $40,000 facility with Congress. A total
of $17 was outstanding under the facility at December 31,
2004. Availability as determined under the facility was
approximately $33,063 based on eligible collateral at
December 31, 2004.
58
The facility is collateralized by all inventories and
receivables of Liggett and a mortgage on its manufacturing
facility. Borrowings under the facility bear interest at a rate
equal to 1.0% above the prime rate of Wachovia Bank, N.A. (the
indirect parent of Congress). The facility requires
Liggetts compliance with certain financial and other
covenants including a restriction on Liggetts ability to
pay cash dividends unless Liggetts borrowing availability
under the facility for the 30-day period prior to the payment of
the dividend, and after giving effect to the dividend, is at
least $5,000 and no event of default has occurred under the
agreement, including Liggetts compliance with the
covenants in the credit facility, including an adjusted net
worth and working capital requirement. In addition, the facility
imposes requirements with respect to Liggetts adjusted net
worth (not to fall below $8,000 as computed in accordance with
the agreement) and working capital (not to fall below a deficit
of $17,000 as computed in accordance with the agreement). At
December 31, 2004, Liggett was in compliance with all
covenants under the credit facility; Liggetts adjusted net
worth was $61,578 and net working capital was $35,473, as
computed in accordance with the agreement.
100 Maple LLC, a company formed by Liggett in 1999 to purchase
its Mebane, North Carolina manufacturing plant, has a term loan
of $4,411 outstanding as of December 31, 2004 under
Liggetts credit facility. The remaining balance of the
term loan is payable in 17 monthly installments of $77 with
a final payment on June 1, 2006 of $3,095. Interest is
charged at the same rate as applicable to Liggetts credit
facility, and the outstanding balance of the term loan reduces
the maximum availability under the credit facility. Liggett has
guaranteed the term loan, and a first mortgage on the Mebane
property and manufacturing equipment collateralizes the term
loan and Liggetts credit facility.
In March 2000, Liggett purchased equipment for $1,000 through
the issuance of a note, payable in 60 monthly installments
of $21 with an effective annual interest rate of 10.14%. In
April 2000, Liggett purchased equipment for $1,071 through the
issuance of notes, payable in 60 monthly installments of
$22 with an effective interest rate of 10.20%.
Beginning in October 2001, Liggett upgraded the efficiency of
its manufacturing operation at Mebane with the addition of four
new state-of-the-art cigarette makers and packers, as well as
related equipment. The total cost of these upgrades was
approximately $20,000. Liggett took delivery of the first two of
the new lines in the fourth quarter of 2001 and financed the
purchase price of $6,404 through the issuance of notes,
guaranteed by us and payable in 60 monthly installments of
$106 with interest calculated at the prime rate. In March 2002,
the third line was delivered, and the purchase price of $3,023
was financed through the issuance of a note, payable in
30 monthly installments of $62 and then 30 monthly
installments of $51 with an effective annual interest rate of
4.68%. In May 2002, the fourth line was delivered, and Liggett
financed the purchase price of $2,871 through the issuance of a
note, payable in 30 monthly installments of $59 and then
30 monthly installments of $48 with an effective annual
interest rate of 4.64%. In September 2002, Liggett purchased
additional equipment for $1,573 through the issuance of a note
guaranteed by us, payable in 60 monthly installments of $26
plus interest rate calculated at LIBOR plus 4.31%.
During 2003, Liggett leased two 100 millimeter box packers,
which will allow Liggett to meet the growing demand for this
cigarette style, and a new filter maker to improve product
quality and capacity. These operating lease agreements provide
for payments totaling approximately $4,500.
In July 2003, Liggett granted an unaffiliated third party an
option to purchase Liggetts former manufacturing facility
and other excess real estate in Durham, North Carolina with a
net book value at December 31, 2004 of approximately
$2,260. The option agreement permits the purchaser to acquire
the property during a two-year period expiring July 15,
2005, at a purchase price of $15,000. Liggett has received
nonrefundable option fees of $1,250. Liggett will be entitled to
receive additional option fees of $250 during the remaining
option period. The option fees will generally be creditable
against the purchase price. The purchaser is currently seeking
financing for the transaction, and there can be no assurance the
sale of the property will occur.
Liggett (and, in certain cases, Brooke Group Holding, our
predecessor and a wholly-owned subsidiary of VGR Holding) and
other United States cigarette manufacturers have been named as
defendants in a number of direct and third-party actions (and
purported class actions) predicated on the theory that they
should be liable for damages from cancer and other adverse
health effects alleged to have been caused by cigarette
59
smoking or by exposure to so-called secondary smoke from
cigarettes. We believe, and have been so advised by counsel
handling the respective cases, that Brooke Group Holding and
Liggett have a number of valid defenses to claims asserted
against them. Litigation is subject to many uncertainties. In
May 2003, a Florida intermediate appellate court overturned a
$790,000 punitive damages award against Liggett and decertified
the Engle smoking and health class action. In May 2004,
the Florida Supreme Court agreed to review the case. Oral
argument was held in November 2004. If the intermediate
appellate courts ruling is not upheld on further appeal,
it will have a material adverse effect on us. In November 2000,
Liggett filed the $3,450 bond required under the bonding statute
enacted in 2000 by the Florida legislature which limits the size
of any bond required, pending appeal, to stay execution of a
punitive damages verdict. In May 2001, Liggett reached an
agreement with the class in the Engle case, which
provided assurance to Liggett that the stay of execution, in
effect pursuant to the Florida bonding statute, would not be
lifted or limited at any point until completion of all appeals,
including to the United States Supreme Court. As required by the
agreement, Liggett paid $6,273 into an escrow account to be held
for the benefit of the Engle class, and released, along
with Liggetts existing $3,450 statutory bond, to the court
for the benefit of the class upon completion of the appeals
process, regardless of the outcome of the appeal. In June 2002,
the jury in an individual case brought under the third phase of
the Engle case awarded $37,500 (subsequently reduced by
the court to $25,100) of compensatory damages against Liggett
and two other defendants and found Liggett 50% responsible for
the damages. The verdict, which was subject to the outcome of
the Engle appeal, has been overturned as a result of the
appellate courts ruling discussed above. In April 2004, a
jury in a Florida state court action awarded compensatory
damages of $540 against Liggett in an individual action. In
addition, plaintiffs counsel was awarded legal fees of
$752. Liggett has appealed the verdict. It is possible that
additional cases could be decided unfavorably and that there
could be further adverse developments in the Englecase.
Liggett may enter into discussions in an attempt to settle
particular cases if it believes it is appropriate to do so.
Management cannot predict the cash requirements related to any
future settlements and judgments, including cash required to
bond any appeals, and there is a risk that those requirements
will not be able to be met. An unfavorable outcome of a pending
smoking and health case could encourage the commencement of
additional similar litigation. In recent years, there have been
a number of adverse regulatory, political and other developments
concerning cigarette smoking and the tobacco industry. These
developments generally receive widespread media attention.
Neither we nor Liggett are able to evaluate the effect of these
developing matters on pending litigation or the possible
commencement of additional litigation or regulation. See
Note 15 to our consolidated financial statements.
Management is unable to make a meaningful estimate of the amount
or range of loss that could result from an unfavorable outcome
of the cases pending against Brooke Group Holding or Liggett or
the costs of defending such cases. It is possible that our
consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash
flows could be materially adversely affected by an unfavorable
outcome in any such tobacco-related litigation.
V.T. Aviation. In February 2001, V.T. Aviation LLC, a
subsidiary of Vector Research Ltd., purchased an airplane for
$15,500 and borrowed $13,175 to fund the purchase. The loan,
which is collateralized by the airplane and a letter of credit
from us for $775, is guaranteed by Vector Research, VGR Holding
and us. The loan is payable in 119 monthly installments of
$125 including annual interest of 2.31% above the 30-day
commercial paper rate, with a final payment of $1,734, based on
current interest rates.
VGR Aviation. In February 2002, V.T. Aviation purchased
an airplane for $6,575 and borrowed $5,800 to fund the purchase.
The loan is guaranteed by us. The loan is payable in
119 monthly installments of $40, including annual interest
at 2.75% above the 30-day commercial paper rate, with a final
payment of $3,064, based on current interest rates. During the
fourth quarter of 2003, this airplane was transferred to our
direct subsidiary, VGR Aviation LLC, which has assumed the debt.
Vector Tobacco. In June 2001, Vector Tobacco purchased
for $8,400 an industrial facility in Timberlake, North Carolina.
Vector Tobacco financed the purchase with an $8,200 loan. During
December 2001, Vector Tobacco borrowed an additional $1,159 from
the same lender to finance building improvements. These loans
were repaid in July 2004 with a portion of the proceeds from the
sale of the Timberlake property.
On April 1, 2002, a subsidiary of ours acquired the stock
of The Medallion Company, Inc., a discount cigarette
manufacturer, and related assets from Medallions principal
stockholder. Following the purchase of
60
the Medallion stock, Vector Tobacco merged into Medallion and
Medallion changed its name to Vector Tobacco Inc. The total
purchase price for the Medallion shares and the related assets
consisted of $50,000 in cash and $60,000 in notes, with the
notes guaranteed by us and by Liggett. Of the notes, $25,000
have been repaid with the final quarterly principal payment of
$3,125 made on March 31, 2004. The remaining $35,000 of
notes bear interest at 6.5% per year, payable semiannually,
and mature on April 1, 2007.
VGR Holding. In May 2001, VGR Holding issued at a
discount $60,000 principal amount of 10% senior secured
notes due March 31, 2006 in a private placement. VGR
Holding received net proceeds from the offering of approximately
$46,500. In April 2002, VGR Holding issued at a discount an
additional $30,000 principal amount of 10% senior secured
notes due March 31, 2006 in a private placement and
received net proceeds of approximately $24,500. The notes were
priced to provide purchasers with a 15.75% yield to maturity.
The notes were on the same terms as the $60,000 principal amount
of senior secured notes previously issued. All of the notes were
guaranteed by us and by Liggett.
In August 2004, in connection with an amendment to the note
purchase agreement, VGR Holding repurchased $7,000 of the notes
at a price of 100% of the principal amount plus accrued
interest. In November 2004, the remaining $63,000 of the notes
were retired at par with the net proceeds from our issuance of
convertible notes. The redemption price, together with accrued
interest, totaled approximately $65,170. We recognized a loss of
$5,333 in 2004 on the early extinguishment of debt.
New Valley. In December 2002, New Valley financed a
portion of its purchase of two office buildings in Princeton,
New Jersey with a $40,500 mortgage loan from HSBC Realty Credit
Corporation (USA). The loan had a term of four years, bore
interest at a floating rate of 2% above LIBOR, and was
collateralized by a first mortgage on the office buildings, as
well as by an assignment of leases and rents. Principal was
amortized to the extent of $54 per month during the term of
the loan. The loan was prepayable without penalty and was
non-recourse against New Valley, except for various specified
environmental and related matters, misapplication of tenant
security deposits and insurance and condemnation proceeds, and
fraud or misrepresentation by New Valley in connection with the
indebtedness.
In February 2005, New Valley completed the sale of the office
buildings. The mortgage loan on the properties was retired at
closing with the proceeds of the sale.
Vector. We believe that we will continue to meet our
liquidity requirements through 2005. Corporate expenditures
(exclusive of Liggett, Vector Research, Vector Tobacco and New
Valley) over the next twelve months for current operations
include cash interest expense of approximately $19,200,
dividends on our outstanding shares (currently at an annual rate
of approximately $67,800) and corporate expenses. We anticipate
funding our expenditures for current operations with available
cash resources, proceeds from public and/or private debt and
equity financing, management fees from subsidiaries and tax
sharing and other payments from Liggett or New Valley. New
Valley may acquire or seek to acquire additional operating
businesses through merger, purchase of assets, stock acquisition
or other means, or to make other investments, which may limit
its ability to make such distributions.
In November 2004, we sold $65,500 of our 5% variable interest
senior convertible notes due November 15, 2011 in a private
offering to qualified institutional investors in accordance with
Rule 144A under the Securities Act of 1933. The buyers of
the notes had the right, for a 120-day period ending
March 18, 2005, to purchase an additional $16,375 of the
notes. At December 31, 2004, buyers had exercised their
rights to purchase an additional $1,405 of the notes, and the
balance of the remaining additional notes were purchased during
the first quarter of 2005. The net proceeds of the initial
issuance of the notes were used in November 2004 to redeem all
of VGR Holdings outstanding 10% senior secured notes
due March 31, 2006.
The notes pay interest on a quarterly basis at a rate of
5% per year with an additional amount of interest payable
on the notes on each interest payment date. This additional
amount is based on the amount of cash dividends actually paid by
us per share on our common stock during the prior three-month
period ending on the record date for such interest payment
multiplied by the number of shares of our common stock into
which the notes are convertible on such record date (together,
the Total Interest). Notwithstanding the foregoing,
however, during the period from November 18, 2004 to
November 15, 2006, the interest payable on each
61
interest payment date will be the higher of (i) the Total
Interest and
(ii) 63/4% per
year. The notes are convertible into our common stock, at the
holders option. The initial conversion price of
$19.57 per share is subject to adjustment for various
events, including the issuance of stock dividends.
The notes will mature on November 15, 2011. We must redeem
12.5% of the total aggregate principal amount of the notes
outstanding on November 15, 2009. In addition to such
redemption amount, we will also redeem on November 15, 2009
and on each interest accrual period thereafter an additional
amount, if any, of the notes necessary to prevent the notes from
being treated as an Applicable High Yield Discount
Obligation under the Internal Revenue Code. The holders of
the notes will have the option on November 15, 2009 to
require us to repurchase some or all of their remaining notes.
The redemption price for such redemptions will equal 100% of the
principal amount of the notes plus accrued interest. If a
fundamental change occurs, we will be required to offer to
repurchase the notes at 100% of their principal amount, plus
accrued interest and, under certain circumstances, a
make-whole premium payable in cash and/or common
stock.
In July 2001, we completed the sale of $172,500 (net proceeds of
approximately $166,400) of our 6.25% convertible
subordinated notes due July 15, 2008 through a private
offering to qualified institutional investors in accordance with
Rule 144A under the Securities Act of 1933. The notes pay
interest at 6.25% per annum and are convertible into our
common stock, at the option of the holder. The conversion price,
which was $24.66 at December 31, 2004, is subject to
adjustment for various events, and any cash distribution on our
common stock results in a corresponding decrease in the
conversion price. In December 2001, $40,000 of the notes were
converted into our common stock, and in October 2004, $8 of the
notes were converted. A total of $132,492 principal amount of
the notes were outstanding at December 31, 2004.
Our consolidated balance sheets include deferred income tax
assets and liabilities, which represent temporary differences in
the application of accounting rules established by generally
accepted accounting principles and income tax laws. As of
December 31, 2004, our deferred income tax liabilities
exceeded our deferred income tax assets by $109,645. The largest
component of our deferred tax liabilities exists because of
differences that resulted from a 1998 and 1999 transaction with
Philip Morris Incorporated in which a subsidiary of Liggett
contributed three of its premium brands to Trademarks LLC, a
newly-formed limited liability company. In such transaction,
Philip Morris acquired an option to purchase the remaining
interest in Trademarks for a 90-day period commencing in
December 2008, and we have an option to require Philip Morris to
purchase the remaining interest commencing in March 2010. For
additional information concerning the Philip Morris brand
transaction, see Note 18 to our consolidated financial
statements.
In connection with the transaction, we recognized in 1999 a
pre-tax gain of $294,078 in our consolidated financial
statements and established a deferred tax liability of $103,100
relating to the gain. Upon exercise of the options during the
90-day periods commencing in December 2008 or in March 2010, we
will be required to pay tax in the amount of the deferred tax
liability, which will be offset by the benefit of any deferred
tax assets, including any net operating losses, available to us
at that time. In connection with an examination of our 1998 and
1999 federal income tax returns, the Internal Revenue Service
issued to us in September 2003 a notice of proposed adjustment.
The notice asserts that, for tax reporting purposes, the entire
gain should have been recognized in 1998 and in 1999 in the
additional amounts of $150,000 and $129,900, respectively,
rather than upon the exercise of the options during the 90-day
periods commencing in December 2008 or in March 2010. If the
Internal Revenue Service were to ultimately prevail with the
proposed adjustment, it would result in the potential
acceleration of tax payments of approximately $121,000,
including interest, net of tax benefits, through
December 31, 2004. These amounts have been previously
recognized in our consolidated financial statements as tax
liabilities. As of December 31, 2004, we believe amounts
potentially due have been fully provided for in our consolidated
statements of operations.
We believe the positions reflected on our income tax returns are
correct and intend to vigorously oppose any proposed adjustments
to our returns. We have filed a protest with the Appeals
Division of the Internal Revenue Service. No payment is due with
respect to these matters during the appeal process. Interest
currently is accruing on the disputed amounts at a rate of 7%,
with the rate adjust quarterly based on rates published by the
U.S. Treasury Department. If taxing authorities were to
ultimately prevail in their assertion
62
that we incurred a tax obligation prior to the exercise dates of
these options and we were required to make such tax payments
prior to 2009 or 2010, and if any necessary financing were not
available to us, our liquidity could be materially adversely
affected.
Long-Term Financial Obligations and Other Commercial
Commitments
Our significant long-term contractual obligations as of
December 31, 2004 were as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fiscal Year | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
Contractual Obligations |
|
2005 | |
|
2006 | |
|
2007 | |
|
2008 | |
|
2009 | |
|
Thereafter | |
|
Total | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
Long-term debt(1)
|
|
$ |
6,043 |
|
|
$ |
46,075 |
|
|
$ |
37,125 |
|
|
$ |
134,044 |
|
|
$ |
5,202 |
|
|
$ |
32,157 |
|
|
$ |
260,646 |
|
Operating leases(2)
|
|
|
6,963 |
|
|
|
5,750 |
|
|
|
4,091 |
|
|
|
2,922 |
|
|
|
2,559 |
|
|
|
7,123 |
|
|
|
29,408 |
|
Inventory purchase commitments(3)
|
|
|
5,902 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5,902 |
|
Capital expenditure purchase commitments(4)
|
|
|
4,935 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4,935 |
|
New Valley obligations under limited partnership agreements
|
|
|
1,334 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,334 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$ |
25,177 |
|
|
$ |
51,825 |
|
|
$ |
41,216 |
|
|
$ |
136,966 |
|
|
$ |
7,761 |
|
|
$ |
39,280 |
|
|
$ |
302,225 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
For more information concerning our long-term debt, see
Liquidity and Capital Resources above and
Note 8 to our consolidated financial statements. Includes
New Valley mortgage note payable due $644 in 2005 and $38,569 in
2006, retired in February 2005 upon sale of Princeton, N. J.
office buildings. |
|
(2) |
Operating lease obligations represent estimated lease payments
for facilities and equipment. See Note 9 to our
consolidated financial statements. |
|
(3) |
Inventory purchase commitments represent purchase commitments
under our leaf inventory management program. See Note 5 to
our consolidated financial statements. |
|
(4) |
Capital expenditure purchase commitments represent purchase
commitments for machinery and equipment at Liggett and Vector
Tobacco. |
Payments under the Master Settlement Agreement discussed in
Note 15 to our consolidated financial statements are
excluded from the table above, as the payments are subject to
adjustment for several factors, including inflation, overall
industry volume, our market share and the market share of
non-participating manufacturers.
Off-Balance Sheet Arrangements
We have various agreements in which we may be obligated to
indemnify the other party with respect to certain matters.
Generally, these indemnification clauses are included in
contracts arising in the normal course of business under which
we customarily agree to hold the other party harmless against
losses arising from a breach of representations related to such
matters as title to assets sold and licensed or certain
intellectual property rights. Payment by us under such
indemnification clauses is generally conditioned on the other
party making a claim that is subject to challenge by us and
dispute resolution procedures specified in the particular
contract. Further, our obligations under these arrangements may
be limited in terms of time and/or amount, and in some
instances, we may have recourse against third parties for
certain payments made by us. It is not possible to predict the
maximum potential amount of future payments under these
indemnification agreements due to the conditional nature of our
obligations and the unique facts of each particular agreement.
Historically, payments made by us under these agreements have
not been material. As of December 31, 2004, we were not
aware of any indemnification agreements that would or are
reasonably expected to have a current or future material adverse
impact on our financial position, results of operations or cash
flows.
In May 1999, in connection with the Philip Morris brand
transaction, Eve Holdings Inc., a subsidiary of Liggett,
guaranteed a $134,900 bank loan to Trademarks LLC. The loan is
secured by Trademarks three premium cigarette brands and
Trademarks interest in the exclusive license of the three
brands by Philip
63
Morris. The license provides for a minimum annual royalty
payment equal to the annual debt service on the loan plus
$1,000. We believe that the fair value of Eves guarantee
was negligible at December 31, 2004.
In February 2004, Liggett Vector Brands and another cigarette
manufacturer entered into a five year agreement with a
subsidiary of the American Wholesale Marketers Association to
support a program to permit tobacco distributors to secure, on
reasonable terms, tax stamp bonds required by state and local
governments for the distribution of cigarettes. Under the
agreement, Liggett Vector Brands has agreed to pay a portion of
losses, if any, incurred by the surety under the bond program,
with a maximum loss exposure of $500 for Liggett Vector Brands.
To secure its potential obligations under the agreement, Liggett
Vector Brands has delivered to the subsidiary of the Association
a $100 letter of credit and a demand note for $400. Liggett
Vector Brands has incurred no losses to date under this
agreement, and we believe the fair value of Liggett Vector
Brands obligation under the agreement was immaterial at
December 31, 2004.
At December 31, 2004, we had outstanding approximately
$4,140 of letters of credit, collateralized by certificates of
deposit. The letters of credit have been issued as security
deposits for leases of office space, to secure the performance
of our subsidiaries under various insurance programs and to
provide collateral for various subsidiary borrowing and capital
lease arrangements.
Market Risk
We are exposed to market risks principally from fluctuations in
interest rates, foreign currency exchange rates and equity
prices. We seek to minimize these risks through our regular
operating and financing activities and our long-term investment
strategy. The market risk management procedures of us and New
Valley cover all market risk sensitive financial instruments.
As of December 31, 2004, approximately $64,357 of our
outstanding debt had variable interest rates, which increases
the risk of fluctuating interest rates. Our exposure to market
risk includes interest rate fluctuations in connection with our
variable rate borrowings, which could adversely affect our cash
flows. As of December 31, 2004, we had no interest rate
caps or swaps. Based on a hypothetical 100 basis point
increase or decrease in interest rates (1%), our annual interest
expense could increase or decrease by approximately $706.
We held investment securities available for sale totaling
$14,927 at December 31, 2004. Adverse market conditions
could have a significant effect on the value of these
investments.
New Valley also holds long-term investments in limited
partnerships and limited liability companies. These investments
are illiquid, and their ultimate realization is subject to the
performance of the investee entities.
New Accounting Pronouncements
In March 2004, the FASB reached a consensus on Emerging Issues
Task Force Issue 03-1, The Meaning of
Other-Than-Temporary Impairment and Its Application to Certain
Investments (EITF 03-1). EITF 03-1
provides guidance for determining when an investment is impaired
and whether the impairment is other than temporary.
EITF 03-1 also incorporates into its consensus the required
disclosures about unrealized losses on investments announced by
the EITF in late 2003 and adds new disclosure requirements
relating to cost-method investments. The impairment accounting
guidance is effective for reporting periods beginning after
June 15, 2004 and the new disclosure requirements for
annual reporting periods ending after June 15, 2004. The
adoption of the impairment guidance contained in EITF 03-1
did not have a material impact on our financial position or
results of operations.
In December 2003, the FASB issued SFAS No. 132R, which
replaces SFAS No. 132, Employers
Disclosures about Pensions and Other Postretirement
Benefits. SFAS No. 132R does not change the
measurement and recognition provisions of SFAS No. 87,
SFAS No. 88, Employers Accounting for
Settlements and Curtailments of Defined Benefit Pension Plans
and for Termination Benefits, and SFAS No. 106,
Employers Accounting for Postretirement Benefits
Other Than Pensions, however, it includes additional
disclosure provisions for annual reporting, including detailed
plan asset information by category, expanded benefit obligation
disclosure and key assumptions. In addition, interim disclosures
related
64
to the individual elements of plan costs and employers
current year contributions are required. (See Note 10 to
our consolidated financial statements.)
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. We
will adopt this new standard prospectively, on July 1,
2005, and have not yet determined whether the adoption of
SFAS No. 123R will have a material impact on our
consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash
flows.
In 2004, the FASB issued SFAS No. 151, Inventory
Costs. SFAS No. 151 requires that abnormal idle
facility expense and 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. We are required to adopt
the provisions of SFAS No. 151 prospectively after
January 1, 2006, but the effect of adoption is not expected
to have a material impact on our consolidated results of
operations, financial position or cash flows.
SPECIAL NOTE REGARDING FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS
We and our representatives may from time to time make oral or
written forward-looking statements within the
meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995,
including any statements that may be contained in the foregoing
discussion in Managements Discussion and Analysis of
Financial Condition and Results of Operations, in this
report and in other filings with the Securities and Exchange
Commission and in our reports to stockholders, which reflect our
expectations or beliefs with respect to future events and
financial performance. These forward-looking statements are
subject to certain risks and uncertainties and, in connection
with the safe-harbor provisions of the Private
Securities Litigation Reform Act, we have identified under
Risk Factors in Item 1 above important factors
that could cause actual results to differ materially from those
contained in any forward-looking statement made by or on behalf
of us.
Results actually achieved may differ materially from expected
results included in these forward-looking statements as a result
of these or other factors. Due to such uncertainties and risks,
readers are cautioned not to place undue reliance on such
forward-looking statements, which speak only as of the date on
which such statements are made. We do not undertake to update
any forward-looking statement that may be made from time to time
by or on behalf of us.
|
|
Item 7A. |
Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market
Risk |
The information under the caption Managements
Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of
Operations Market Risk is incorporated herein
by reference.
|
|
Item 8. |
Financial Statements and Supplementary Data |
Our Consolidated Financial Statements and Notes thereto,
together with the report thereon of PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
dated March 24, 2005, are set forth beginning on page F-1
of this report.
|
|
Item 9. |
Changes in and Disagreements with Accountants on
Accounting and Financial Disclosure |
None.
|
|
Item 9A. |
Controls and Procedures |
Conclusions Regarding the Effectiveness of Disclosure
Controls and Procedures
Under the supervision and with the participation of our
management, including our principal executive officer and
principal financial officer, we have evaluated the effectiveness
of our disclosure controls and procedures as of the end of the
period covered by this report, and, based on their evaluation,
our principal executive officer and principal financial officer
have concluded that these controls and procedures are effective.
65
Changes in Internal Control Over Financial Reporting
There were no significant changes in our internal control over
financial reporting during the period covered by this report
that have materially affected, or are reasonably likely to
materially affect, our internal control over financial reporting.
Managements Report on Internal Control Over Financial
Reporting
Our management is responsible for establishing and maintaining
adequate internal control over financial reporting, as such term
is defined in Exchange Act Rule 13a-15(f). Under the
supervision and with the participation of our management,
including our principal executive officer and principal
financial officer, we conducted an evaluation of the
effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting
based on the framework in Internal Control
Integrated Framework issued by the Committee of Sponsoring
Organizations of the Treadway Commission. Based on our
evaluation under the framework in Internal
Control Integrated Framework, our management
concluded that our internal control over financial reporting was
effective as of December 31, 2004.
Our managements assessment of the effectiveness of our
internal control over financial reporting as of
December 31, 2004 has been audited by
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, an independent registered certified
public accounting firm, as stated in their report which is
included herein.
|
|
Item 9B. |
Other Information |
None.
PART III
|
|
Item 10. |
Directors and Executive Officers of the Registrant |
This information is contained in our definitive Proxy Statement
for our 2005 Annual Meeting of Stockholders, to be filed with
the SEC not later than 120 days after the end of our fiscal
year covered by this report pursuant to Regulation 14A
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and incorporated
herein by reference.
|
|
Item 11. |
Executive Compensation |
This information is contained in the Proxy Statement and
incorporated herein by reference.
|
|
Item 12. |
Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and
Management and Related Stockholder Matters |
This information is contained in the Proxy Statement and
incorporated herein by reference.
|
|
Item 13. |
Certain Relationships and Related Transactions |
This information is contained in the Proxy Statement and
incorporated herein by reference.
|
|
Item 14. |
Principal Accountant Fees and Services |
This information is contained in the Proxy Statement and
incorporated herein by reference.
PART IV
|
|
Item 15. |
Exhibits and Financial Statement Schedules |
|
|
(a)(1) |
Index to 2004 Consolidated Financial Statements: |
Our consolidated financial statements and the notes thereto,
together with the report thereon of PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
dated March 24, 2005, appear beginning on page F-1 of this
report.
66
|
|
(a)(2) |
Financial Statement Schedules: |
|
|
|
|
|
Schedule II Valuation and Qualifying Accounts
|
|
|
Page F-59 |
|
Schedule III Real Estate and Accumulated Depreciation
|
|
|
Page F-60 |
|
Financial statement schedules not included in this report have
been omitted because they are not applicable or the required
information is shown in the consolidated financial statements or
the notes thereto.
|
|
|
Douglas Elliman Realty LLC |
The consolidated financial statements of Douglas Elliman Realty
LLC as of December 31, 2004 and 2003 and for the three
years ended December 31, 2004 will be filed by amendment
hereto on Form 10-K/A. Such financial statements will be
filed with the SEC no later than 90 days after the end of
our fiscal year covered by this report in accordance with
Rule 3-09 of Regulation S-X.
The consolidated financial statements of Koa Investors LLC as of
December 31, 2004 and 2003 and for the three years ended
December 31, 2004 will be filed by amendment hereto on
Form 10-K/A. Such financial statements will be filed with
the SEC no later than 90 days after the end of our fiscal
year covered by this report in accordance with Rule 3-09 of
Regulation S-X.
67
(a) The following is a list of exhibits filed herewith as
part of this Annual Report on Form 10-K:
INDEX OF EXHIBITS
|
|
|
|
|
Exhibit | |
|
|
No. | |
|
Description |
| |
|
|
|
*3 |
.1 |
|
Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation of Vector
Group Ltd. (formerly known as Brooke Group Ltd.)
(Vector) (incorporated by reference to
Exhibit 3.1 in Vectors Form 10-Q for the quarter
ended September 30, 1999). |
|
|
*3 |
.2 |
|
Certificate of Amendment to the Amended and Restated Certificate
of Incorporation of Vector (incorporated by reference to
Exhibit 3.1 in Vectors Form 8-K dated May 24,
2000). |
|
|
*3 |
.3 |
|
By-Laws of Vector. |
|
|
*4 |
.1 |
|
Amended and Restated Loan and Security Agreement, dated as of
April 14, 2004, by and between Congress Financial
Corporation, as lender, Liggett Group Inc., as borrower, 100
Maple LLC and Epic Holdings Inc. (incorporated by reference to
Exhibit 10.1 in Vectors Form 8-K dated April 14,
2004). |
|
|
*4 |
.2 |
|
Indenture, dated as of July 5, 2001, between Vector and
U.S. Bank Trust National Association, as Trustee, relating
to the 6.25% Convertible Subordinated Notes due 2008,
including the form of Note (incorporated by reference to
Exhibit 10.1 in Vectors Form 8-K dated
July 16, 2001). |
|
|
*4 |
.3 |
|
Form of
61/2%
Promissory Note of VGR Acquisition Inc. due 2007 (incorporated
by reference to Exhibit 10.3 in Vectors Form 8-K
dated February 15, 2002). |
|
|
*4 |
.4 |
|
Indenture, dated as of November 18, 2004, between Vector
and Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as Trustee, relating to the 5%
Variable Interest Senior Convertible Notes due 2011, including
the form of Note (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.1
in Vectors Form 8-K dated November 18, 2004). |
|
|
*4 |
.5 |
|
Form of Additional Investment Rights, dated as of
November 18, 2004, among Vector and the Buyers
(incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4.2 in Vectors
Form 8-K dated November 16, 2004). |
|
|
*4 |
.6 |
|
Registration Rights Agreement, dated as of November 16,
2004, by and among Vector and the Buyers (incorporated by
reference to Exhibit 4.3 in Vectors Form 8-K dated
November 16, 2004). |
|
|
*10 |
.1 |
|
Corporate Services Agreement, dated as of June 29, 1990,
between Vector and Liggett (incorporated by reference to
Exhibit 10.10 in Liggetts Registration Statement on
Form S-1, No. 33-47482). |
|
|
*10 |
.2 |
|
Services Agreement, dated as of February 26, 1991, between
Brooke Management Inc. (BMI) and Liggett (the
Liggett Services Agreement) (incorporated by
reference to Exhibit 10.5 in VGR Holdings
Registration Statement on Form S-1, No. 33-93576). |
|
|
*10 |
.3 |
|
First Amendment to Liggett Services Agreement, dated as of
November 30, 1993, between Liggett and BMI (incorporated by
reference to Exhibit 10.6 in VGR Holdings
Registration Statement on Form S-1, No. 33-93576). |
|
|
*10 |
.4 |
|
Second Amendment to Liggett Services Agreement, dated as of
October 1, 1995, between BMI, Vector and Liggett
(incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10(c) in
Vectors Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30,
1995). |
|
|
*10 |
.5 |
|
Third Amendment to Liggett Services Agreement, dated as of
March 31, 2001, by and between Vector and Liggett
(incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.5 in Vectors
Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2003). |
|
|
*10 |
.6 |
|
Corporate Services Agreement, dated January 1, 1992,
between VGR Holding and Liggett (incorporated by reference to
Exhibit 10.13 in Liggetts Registration Statement on
Form S-1, No. 33-47482). |
68
|
|
|
|
|
Exhibit | |
|
|
No. | |
|
Description |
| |
|
|
|
|
*10 |
.7 |
|
Employment Agreement, dated February 21, 1992, between
Vector and Bennett S. LeBow (incorporated by reference to
Exhibit 10(xx) in Vectors Form 10-K for the year
ended December 31, 1991). |
|
|
*10 |
.8 |
|
Amendment to Employment Agreement, dated as of July 20,
1998, between Vector and Bennett S. LeBow (incorporated by
reference to Exhibit 10.8 in Vectors Form 10-K for
the year ended December 31, 1998). |
|
|
*10 |
.9 |
|
Tax-Sharing Agreement, dated June 29, 1990, among Brooke
Group Holding Inc. (Brooke Group Holding), Liggett
and certain other entities (incorporated by reference to
Exhibit 10.12 in Liggetts Registration Statement on
Form S-1, No. 33-47482). |
|
|
*10 |
.10 |
|
Tax Indemnity Agreement, dated as of October 6, 1993, among
Brooke Group Holding, Liggett and certain other entities
(incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.2 in
SkyBox International Inc.s Form 10-Q for the quarter
ended September 30, 1993). |
|
|
*10 |
.11 |
|
Expense Sharing Agreement, dated as of January 18, 1995,
between Vector and New Valley Corporation (New
Valley) (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10(d)
in Vectors Form 10-Q for the quarter ended
September 30, 1995). |
|
|
*10 |
.12 |
|
Settlement Agreement, dated March 15, 1996, by and among
the State of West Virginia, State of Florida, State of
Mississippi, Commonwealth of Massachusetts, and State of
Louisiana, Brooke Group Holding and Liggett (incorporated by
reference to Exhibit 15 in the Schedule 13D filed by Vector
on March 11, 1996, as amended, with respect to the common
stock of RJR Nabisco Holdings Corp.). |
|
|
*10 |
.13 |
|
Addendum to Initial States Settlement Agreement (incorporated by
reference to Exhibit 10.43 in Vectors Form 10-Q for
the quarter ended March 31, 1997). |
|
|
*10 |
.14 |
|
Settlement Agreement, dated March 12, 1998, by and among
the States listed in Appendix A thereto, Brooke Group Holding
and Liggett (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.35 in
Vectors Form 10-K for the year ended December 31,
1997). |
|
|
*10 |
.15 |
|
Master Settlement Agreement made by the Settling States and
Participating Manufacturers signatories thereto (incorporated by
reference to Exhibit 10.1 in Philip Morris Companies
Inc.s Form 8-K dated November 25, 1998,
Commission File No. 1-8940). |
|
|
*10 |
.16 |
|
General Liggett Replacement Agreement, dated as of
November 23, 1998, entered into by each of the Settling
States under the Master Settlement Agreement, and Brooke Group
Holding and Liggett (incorporated by reference to
Exhibit 10.34 in Vectors Form 10-K for the year ended
December 31, 1998). |
|
|
*10 |
.17 |
|
Stipulation and Agreed Order regarding Stay of Execution Pending
Review and Related Matters, dated May 7, 2001, entered into
by Philip Morris Incorporated, Lorillard Tobacco Co., Liggett
Group Inc. and Brooke Group Holding Inc. and the class counsel
in Engel, et. al., v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., et. al.
(incorporated by reference to Exhibit 99.2 in Philip Morris
Companies Inc.s Form 8-K dated May 7, 2001). |
|
|
*10 |
.18 |
|
Vector Group Ltd. 1998 Long-Term Incentive Plan (incorporated by
reference to the Appendix to Vectors Proxy Statement dated
September 15, 1998). |
|
|
*10 |
.19 |
|
Stock Option Agreement, dated July 20, 1998, between Vector
and Bennett S. LeBow (incorporated by reference to
Exhibit 6 in the Amendment No. 5 to the Schedule 13D
filed by Bennett S. LeBow on October 16, 1998 with respect
to the common stock of Vector). |
|
|
*10 |
.20 |
|
Letter Agreement, dated November 20, 1998, by and among
Philip Morris Incorporated (PM), Brooke Group
Holding, Liggett & Myers Inc. (L&M) and
Liggett (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.1 in
Vectors Report on Form 8-K dated November 25, 1998). |
69
|
|
|
|
|
Exhibit | |
|
|
No. | |
|
Description |
| |
|
|
|
|
*10 |
.21 |
|
Amended and Restated Formation and Limited Liability Company
Agreement of Trademarks LLC, dated as of May 24, 1999,
among Brooke Group Holding, L&M, Eve Holdings Inc.
(Eve), Liggett and PM, including the form of
Trademark License Agreement (incorporated by reference to
Exhibit 10.4 in Vectors Form 10-Q for the quarter
ended June 30, 1999). |
|
|
*10 |
.22 |
|
Class A Option Agreement, dated as of January 12,
1999, among Brooke Group Holding, L&M, Eve, Liggett and PM
(incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.61 in
Vectors Form 10-K for the year ended December 31,
1998). |
|
|
*10 |
.23 |
|
Class B Option Agreement, dated as of January 12,
1999, among Brooke Group Holding, L&M, Eve, Liggett and PM
(incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.62 in
Vectors Form 10-K for the year ended December 31,
1998). |
|
|
*10 |
.24 |
|
Pledge Agreement dated as of May 24, 1999 from Eve, as
grantor, in favor of Citibank, N.A., as agent (incorporated by
reference to Exhibit 10.5 in Vectors Form 10-Q for
the quarter ended June 30, 1999). |
|
|
*10 |
.25 |
|
Guaranty dated as of June 10, 1999 from Eve, as guarantor,
in favor of Citibank, N.A., as agent (incorporated by reference
to Exhibit 10.6 in Vectors Form 10-Q for the quarter
ended June 30, 1999). |
|
|
*10 |
.26 |
|
Employment Agreement dated as of June 1, 1995, as amended,
effective as of January 1, 1996, between New Valley and
Bennett S. LeBow (incorporated by reference to
Exhibit 10(b)(i) in New Valleys Form 10-K for the
year ended December 31, 1995). |
|
|
*10 |
.27 |
|
Employment Agreement (Lorber Employment Agreement)
dated as June 1, 1995, as amended, effective as of
January 1, 1996, between New Valley and Howard M. Lorber
(incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10(b)(ii) in New
Valleys Form 10-K for the year ended December 31,
1995). |
|
|
*10 |
.28 |
|
Amendment dated January 1, 1998 to Lorber Employment
Agreement (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10(b)(iii)
in New Valleys Form 10-K for the year ended
December 31, 1997). |
|
|
*10 |
.29 |
|
Employment Agreement dated September 22, 1995, between New
Valley and Richard J. Lampen (incorporated by reference to
Exhibit 10(a) in New Valleys Form 10-Q for the
quarter ended September 30, 1995). |
|
|
*10 |
.30 |
|
Employment Agreement dated April 15, 1994, between Vector
and Marc N. Bell (incorporated by reference to
Exhibit 10.67 in Vectors Form 10-K for the year ended
December 31, 1998). |
|
|
*10 |
.31 |
|
Employment Agreement dated as of August 1, 1999, between
Vector and Joselynn D. Van Siclen (incorporated by reference to
Exhibit 10.8 in Vectors Form 10-Q for the quarter
ended June 30, 1999). |
|
|
*10 |
.32 |
|
Vector Group Ltd. Amended and Restated 1999 Long-Term Incentive
Plan (incorporated by reference to Appendix A in Vectors
Proxy Statement dated April 21, 2004). |
|
|
*10 |
.33 |
|
Stock Option Agreement, dated November 4, 1999, between
Vector and Bennett S. LeBow (incorporated by reference to
Exhibit 10.59 in Vectors Form 10-K for the year ended
December 31, 1999). |
|
|
*10 |
.34 |
|
Stock Option Agreement, dated November 4, 1999, between
Vector and Richard J. Lampen (incorporated by reference to
Exhibit 10.60 in Vectors Form 10-K for the year ended
December 31, 1999). |
|
|
*10 |
.35 |
|
Stock Option Agreement, dated November 4, 1999, between
Vector and Marc N. Bell (incorporated by reference to
Exhibit 10.61 in Vectors Form 10-K for the year ended
December 31, 1999). |
|
|
*10 |
.36 |
|
Stock Option Agreement, dated November 4, 1999, between
Vector and Joselynn D. Van Siclen (incorporated by reference to
Exhibit 10.62 in Vectors Form 10-K for the year ended
December 31, 1999). |
70
|
|
|
|
|
Exhibit | |
|
|
No. | |
|
Description |
| |
|
|
|
|
*10 |
.37 |
|
Stock Option Agreement, dated November 4, 1999, between
Vector and Howard M. Lorber (incorporated by reference to
Exhibit 10.63 in Vectors Form 10-K for the year ended
December 31, 1999). |
|
|
*10 |
.38 |
|
Letter Agreement, dated September 1, 2000, between Ronald
J. Bernstein and Liggett (incorporated by reference to
Exhibit 10.62 in Vectors Form 10-K for the year ended
December 31, 2000). |
|
|
*10 |
.39 |
|
Stock Option Agreement, dated October 26, 2000, between
Vector and Ronald J. Bernstein (incorporated by reference to
Exhibit 10.63 in Vectors Form 10-K for the year ended
December 31, 2000). |
|
|
*10 |
.40 |
|
Stock Option Agreement, dated January 22, 2001, between
Vector and Bennett S. LeBow (incorporated by reference to
Exhibit 10.1 in Vectors Form 10-Q for the quarter
ended March 31, 2001). |
|
|
*10 |
.41 |
|
Stock Option Agreement, dated January 22, 2001, between
Vector and Howard M. Lorber (incorporated by reference to
Exhibit 10.2 in Vectors Form 10-Q for the quarter
ended March 31, 2001). |
|
|
*10 |
.42 |
|
Employment Agreement, dated as of January 17, 2001, between
Vector and Howard M. Lorber (incorporated by reference to
Exhibit 10.3 in Vectors Form 10-Q for the quarter
ended March 31, 2001). |
|
|
*10 |
.43 |
|
Vector Supplemental Executive Retirement Plan (as amended and
restated March 3, 2004) (incorporated by reference to
Exhibit 10.47 in Vectors Form 10-K for the year ended
December 31, 2003). |
|
|
*10 |
.44 |
|
Purchase and Sale Agreement, dated as of February 15, 2002,
between VGR Acquisition Inc., The Medallion Company, Inc. and
Gary L. Hall (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.1 in
Vectors Form 8-K dated February 15, 2002). |
|
|
*10 |
.45 |
|
Form of Asset Purchase Agreement between VGR Acquisition Inc.
and Gary L. Hall (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.4
in Vectors Form 8-K dated February 15, 2002). |
|
|
*10 |
.46 |
|
Asset Purchase Agreement, dated June 4, 2004, by and
between VT Roxboro LLC and Flue-Cured Tobacco Cooperative
Stabilization Corporation (incorporated by reference to
Exhibit 10.1 in Vectors Form 8-K dated June 4,
2004). |
|
|
*10 |
.47 |
|
Securities Purchase Agreement, dated as of November 16,
2004, by and among Vector and the investors listed on the
Schedule of Buyers attached thereto (the Buyers)
(incorporated by reference to Exhibit 1.1 in Vectors
Form 8-K dated November 16, 2004). |
|
|
*10 |
.48 |
|
Letter Agreement, dated November 22, 2004, between Vector
and Mr. LeBow (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 14
to Amendment No. 11, dated November 23, 2004, to the
Schedule 13D filed by Bennett S. LeBow with respect to the
Companys common stock). |
|
|
21 |
|
|
Subsidiaries of Vector. |
|
|
23 |
|
|
Consent of PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP relating to Vectors
Registration Statements on Form S-8 (No. 333-59210,
No. 333-71596 and No. 333-118113) and Registration
Statements on Form S-3 (No. 333-46055, No. 33-38869,
No. 333-45377, No. 333-56873, No. 333-62156,
No. 333-69294, No. 333-82212, No. 333-121502 and
No. 333-121504). |
|
|
31 |
.1 |
|
Certification of Chief Executive Officer, Pursuant to Exchange
Act Rule 13a-14(a), as Adopted Pursuant to Section 302
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. |
|
|
31 |
.2 |
|
Certification of Chief Financial Officer, Pursuant to Exchange
Act Rule 13a-14(a), as Adopted Pursuant to Section 302
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. |
|
|
32 |
.1 |
|
Certification of Chief Executive Officer, Pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as Adopted Pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. |
71
|
|
|
|
|
Exhibit | |
|
|
No. | |
|
Description |
| |
|
|
|
|
32 |
.2 |
|
Certification of Chief Financial Officer, Pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as Adopted Pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. |
|
|
99 |
.1 |
|
Material Legal Proceedings. |
|
|
|
|
* |
Incorporated by reference |
Each management contract or compensatory plan or arrangement
required to be filed as an exhibit to this report pursuant to
Item 14(c) is listed in exhibit nos. 10.7, 10.8, 10.18,
10.19 and 10.26 through 10.43.
72
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.
|
|
|
VECTOR GROUP LTD. |
|
(Registrant) |
|
|
|
|
By: |
/s/ Joselynn D. Van Siclen
|
|
|
|
|
|
Joselynn D. Van Siclen |
|
Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer |
Date: March 24, 2005
73
POWER OF ATTORNEY
The undersigned directors and officers of Vector Group Ltd.
hereby constitute and appoint Richard J. Lampen, Joselynn D. Van
Siclen and Marc N. Bell, and each of them, with full power to
act without the other and with full power of substitution and
resubstitutions, our true and lawful attorneys-in-fact with full
power to execute in our name and behalf in the capacities
indicated below, this Annual Report on Form 10-K and any
and all amendments thereto and to file the same, with all
exhibits thereto and other documents in connection therewith,
with the Securities and Exchange Commission, and hereby ratify
and confirm all that such attorneys-in-fact, or any of them, or
their substitutes shall lawfully do or cause to be done by
virtue hereof.
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 indicated on
March 24, 2005.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Signature |
|
Title |
|
|
|
|
|
|
/s/ Bennett S. LeBow
Bennett
S. LeBow |
|
Chairman of the Board
(Principal Executive Officer) |
|
/s/ Joselynn D. Van
Siclen
Joselynn
D. Van Siclen |
|
Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
(Principal Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer) |
|
/s/ Henry C. Beinstein
Henry
C. Beinstein |
|
Director |
|
/s/ Ronald J. Bernstein
Ronald
J. Bernstein |
|
Director |
|
/s/ Robert J. Eide
Robert
J. Eide |
|
Director |
|
/s/ Howard M. Lorber
Howard
M. Lorber |
|
Director |
|
/s/ Jeffrey S. Podell
Jeffrey
S. Podell |
|
Director |
|
/s/ Jean E. Sharpe
Jean
E. Sharpe |
|
Director |
74
VECTOR GROUP LTD.
FORM 10-K FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2004
ITEMS 8, 15(a)(1) AND (2)
INDEX TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
AND FINANCIAL STATEMENT SCHEDULES
Financial Statements and Schedules of the Registrant and its
subsidiaries required to be included in Items 8, 15(a)
(1) and (2) are listed below:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Page | |
|
|
| |
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Vector Group Ltd. Consolidated Financial Statements
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Report of Independent Registered Certified Public Accounting Firm
|
|
|
F-2 |
|
|
Vector Group Ltd. Consolidated Balance Sheets as of
December 31, 2004 and 2003
|
|
|
F-4 |
|
|
Vector Group Ltd. Consolidated Statements of Operations for the
years ended December 31, 2004, 2003 and 2002
|
|
|
F-5 |
|
|
Vector Group Ltd. Consolidated Statements of Stockholders
Equity (Deficit) for the years ended December 31, 2004,
2003 and 2002
|
|
|
F-6 |
|
|
Vector Group Ltd. Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows for the
years ended December 31, 2004, 2003 and 2002
|
|
|
F-7 |
|
|
Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements
|
|
|
F-9 |
|
|
FINANCIAL STATEMENT SCHEDULES:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Schedule II Valuation and Qualifying Accounts
|
|
|
F-59 |
|
|
Schedule III Real Estate and Accumulated Depreciation
|
|
|
F-60 |
|
Financial Statement Schedules not listed above have been omitted
because they are not applicable or the required information is
contained in our consolidated financial statements or
accompanying notes.
F-1
Report of Independent Registered Certified Public Accounting
Firm
To the Board of Directors and Stockholders
of Vector Group Ltd.
We have completed an integrated audit of Vector Group
Ltd.s 2004 consolidated financial statements and of its
internal control over financial reporting as of
December 31, 2004 and audits of its 2003 and 2002
consolidated financial statements in accordance with the
standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board
(United States). Our opinions, based on our audits, are
presented below.
Consolidated financial statements and financial statement
schedules
In our opinion, the consolidated financial statements listed in
the accompanying index present fairly, in all material respects,
the financial position of Vector Group Ltd. and its subsidiaries
at December 31, 2004 and 2003, and the results of their
operations and their cash flows for each of the three years in
the period ended December 31, 2004 in conformity with
accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of
America. In addition, in our opinion, the financial statement
schedules listed in the accompanying index present fairly, in
all material respects, the information set forth therein when
read in conjunction with the related consolidated financial
statements. These financial statements and financial statement
schedules are the responsibility of the Companys
management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these
financial statements and financial statement schedules 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, managements assessment, included in
Managements Report on Internal Control Over
Financial Reporting, appearing under Item 9A, that
the Company maintained effective internal control over financial
reporting as of December 31, 2004 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, the Company maintained, in all
material respects, effective internal control over financial
reporting as of December 31, 2004, based on criteria
established in Internal Control Integrated
Framework issued by COSO. The Companys 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 managements assessment and on
the effectiveness of the Companys 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 managements 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 companys 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 companys
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
F-2
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
companys 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
Miami, Florida
March 24, 2005
F-3
VECTOR GROUP LTD. AND SUBSIDIARIES
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS
(Dollars in Thousands, Except Per Share Amounts)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31, | |
|
December 31, | |
|
|
2004 | |
|
2003 | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
ASSETS:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Current assets:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents
|
|
$ |
110,004 |
|
|
$ |
74,808 |
|
|
Investment securities available for sale
|
|
|
14,927 |
|
|
|
67,521 |
|
|
Accounts receivable trade
|
|
|
2,464 |
|
|
|
10,425 |
|
|
Other receivables
|
|
|
653 |
|
|
|
2,605 |
|
|
Inventories
|
|
|
78,941 |
|
|
|
126,715 |
|
|
Restricted assets
|
|
|
606 |
|
|
|
771 |
|
|
Deferred income taxes
|
|
|
22,695 |
|
|
|
19,328 |
|
|
Other current assets
|
|
|
11,834 |
|
|
|
12,568 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total current assets
|
|
|
242,124 |
|
|
|
314,741 |
|
Property, plant and equipment, net
|
|
|
65,357 |
|
|
|
143,596 |
|
Assets held for sale
|
|
|
54,077 |
|
|
|
9,438 |
|
Long-term investments, net
|
|
|
2,410 |
|
|
|
2,431 |
|
Investments in non-consolidated real estate businesses
|
|
|
27,160 |
|
|
|
18,718 |
|
Restricted assets
|
|
|
4,374 |
|
|
|
5,571 |
|
Deferred income taxes
|
|
|
18,119 |
|
|
|
13,200 |
|
Intangible asset
|
|
|
107,511 |
|
|
|
107,511 |
|
Other assets
|
|
|
14,763 |
|
|
|
13,006 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total assets
|
|
$ |
535,895 |
|
|
$ |
628,212 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
LIABILITIES AND STOCKHOLDERS EQUITY (DEFICIT):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Current liabilities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Current portion of notes payable and long-term debt
|
|
$ |
6,043 |
|
|
$ |
10,762 |
|
|
Accounts payable
|
|
|
10,549 |
|
|
|
8,635 |
|
|
Accrued promotional expenses
|
|
|
17,579 |
|
|
|
22,203 |
|
|
Accrued taxes payable, net
|
|
|
28,859 |
|
|
|
48,577 |
|
|
Settlement accruals
|
|
|
28,200 |
|
|
|
52,650 |
|
|
Deferred income taxes
|
|
|
4,175 |
|
|
|
4,000 |
|
|
Accrued interest
|
|
|
4,931 |
|
|
|
7,004 |
|
|
Other accrued liabilities
|
|
|
19,499 |
|
|
|
19,255 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total current liabilities
|
|
|
119,835 |
|
|
|
173,086 |
|
Notes payable, long-term debt and other obligations, less
current portion
|
|
|
254,603 |
|
|
|
299,977 |
|
Fair value of derivatives embedded within convertible debt
|
|
|
25,686 |
|
|
|
|
|
Noncurrent employee benefits
|
|
|
15,727 |
|
|
|
13,438 |
|
Deferred income taxes
|
|
|
146,284 |
|
|
|
139,927 |
|
Other liabilities
|
|
|
5,134 |
|
|
|
4,781 |
|
Minority interests
|
|
|
53,429 |
|
|
|
43,478 |
|
Commitments and contingencies
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Stockholders equity (deficit):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Preferred stock, par value $1.00 per share, authorized
10,000,000 shares
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Common stock, par value $0.10 per share, authorized
100,000,000 shares, issued 45,163,386 and
42,103,276 shares and outstanding 41,773,591 and
39,021,189 shares
|
|
|
4,177 |
|
|
|
3,902 |
|
|
Additional paid-in capital
|
|
|
241,119 |
|
|
|
251,239 |
|
|
Deficit
|
|
|
(303,538 |
) |
|
|
(280,598 |
) |
|
Accumulated other comprehensive loss
|
|
|
(10,409 |
) |
|
|
(9,335 |
) |
|
Less: 3,389,795 and 3,082,087 shares of common stock in
treasury, at cost
|
|
|
(16,152 |
) |
|
|
(11,683 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total stockholders equity (deficit)
|
|
|
(84,803 |
) |
|
|
(46,475 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total liabilities and stockholders equity (deficit)
|
|
$ |
535,895 |
|
|
$ |
628,212 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The accompanying notes are an integral part of the consolidated
financial statements.
F-4
VECTOR GROUP LTD. AND SUBSIDIARIES
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS
(Dollars in Thousands, Except Per Share Amounts)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31, | |
|
|
| |
|
|
2004 | |
|
2003 | |
|
2002 | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
Revenues:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tobacco*
|
|
$ |
498,860 |
|
|
$ |
529,385 |
|
|
$ |
502,417 |
|
|
Real estate leasing
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
661 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total revenues
|
|
|
498,860 |
|
|
|
529,385 |
|
|
|
503,078 |
|
Expenses:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cost of goods sold (including inventory impairment of $37,000 in
2004)*
|
|
|
325,663 |
|
|
|
339,617 |
|
|
|
344,622 |
|
|
Operating, selling, administrative and general expenses
|
|
|
144,051 |
|
|
|
167,978 |
|
|
|
173,888 |
|
|
Restructuring and impairment charges
|
|
|
13,699 |
|
|
|
21,300 |
|
|
|
3,460 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating income (loss)
|
|
|
15,447 |
|
|
|
490 |
|
|
|
(18,892 |
) |
Other income (expenses):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interest and dividend income
|
|
|
2,563 |
|
|
|
4,696 |
|
|
|
10,071 |
|
|
Interest expense
|
|
|
(25,077 |
) |
|
|
(26,592 |
) |
|
|
(26,433 |
) |
|
Loss on extinguishment of debt
|
|
|
(5,333 |
) |
|
|
(1,721 |
) |
|
|
(1,320 |
) |
|
Gain (loss) on investments, net
|
|
|
8,664 |
|
|
|
1,955 |
|
|
|
(6,240 |
) |
|
Gain on sale of assets
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
478 |
|
|
|
9,097 |
|
|
Equity income (loss) from non-consolidated real estate businesses
|
|
|
9,782 |
|
|
|
901 |
|
|
|
(749 |
) |
|
Provision for uncollectibility of notes receivable
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(13,198 |
) |
|
Other, net
|
|
|
60 |
|
|
|
19 |
|
|
|
(110 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income (loss) from continuing operations before benefit for
income taxes and minority interests
|
|
|
6,106 |
|
|
|
(19,774 |
) |
|
|
(47,774 |
) |
|
Benefit for income taxes
|
|
|
(6,960 |
) |
|
|
(666 |
) |
|
|
(6,393 |
) |
|
Minority interests
|
|
|
(9,027 |
) |
|
|
2,976 |
|
|
|
9,562 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income (loss) from continuing operations
|
|
|
4,039 |
|
|
|
(16,132 |
) |
|
|
(31,819 |
) |
Discontinued operations:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income from discontinued operations, net of minority interest
and taxes
|
|
|
458 |
|
|
|
522 |
|
|
|
25 |
|
|
Gain on disposal of discontinued operations, net of minority
interest and taxes
|
|
|
2,231 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gain from discontinued operations
|
|
|
2,689 |
|
|
|
522 |
|
|
|
25 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income (loss)
|
|
$ |
6,728 |
|
|
$ |
(15,610 |
) |
|
$ |
(31,794 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Per basic common share:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income (loss) from continuing operations
|
|
$ |
0.10 |
|
|
$ |
(0.40 |
) |
|
$ |
(0.82 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income from discontinued operations
|
|
$ |
0.06 |
|
|
$ |
0.02 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income (loss) applicable to common shares
|
|
$ |
0.16 |
|
|
$ |
(0.38 |
) |
|
$ |
(0.82 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Basic weighted average common shares outstanding
|
|
|
41,403,744 |
|
|
|
40,681,214 |
|
|
|
38,559,364 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Per diluted common share:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income (loss) from continuing operations
|
|
$ |
0.10 |
|
|
$ |
(0.40 |
) |
|
$ |
(0.82 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income from discontinued operations
|
|
$ |
0.06 |
|
|
$ |
0.02 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income (loss) applicable to common shares
|
|
$ |
0.16 |
|
|
$ |
(0.38 |
) |
|
$ |
(0.82 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Diluted weighted average common shares outstanding
|
|
|
43,222,027 |
|
|
|
40,681,214 |
|
|
|
38,559,364 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* |
Revenues and Cost of goods sold include excise taxes of
$175,674, $195,342 and $192,664 for the years ended
December 31, 2004, 2003 and 2002, respectively. |
The accompanying notes are an integral part of the consolidated
financial statements.
F-5
VECTOR GROUP LTD. AND SUBSIDIARIES
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF STOCKHOLDERS EQUITY
(DEFICIT)
(Dollars in Thousands, Except Per Share Amounts)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accumulated | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other | |
|
|
|
|
Common Stock | |
|
Additional | |
|
|
|
|
|
Comprehensive | |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
Paid-In | |
|
|
|
Treasury | |
|
Income | |
|
|
|
|
Shares | |
|
Amount | |
|
Capital | |
|
Deficit | |
|
Stock | |
|
(Loss) | |
|
Total | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
Balance, December 31, 2001
|
|
|
33,171,847 |
|
|
$ |
3,317 |
|
|
$ |
309,849 |
|
|
$ |
(182,645 |
) |
|
$ |
(18,333 |
) |
|
$ |
1,170 |
|
|
$ |
113,358 |
|
Net loss
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(31,794 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(31,794 |
) |
|
Pension related minimum liability adjustments
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(11,090 |
) |
|
|
(11,090 |
) |
|
Unrealized loss on investment securities
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(203 |
) |
|
|
(203 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total other comprehensive loss
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(11,293 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total comprehensive loss
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(43,087 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Distributions on common stock
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(54,477 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(54,477 |
) |
Effect of stock dividend
|
|
|
1,662,619 |
|
|
|
166 |
|
|
|
22,113 |
|
|
|
(22,279 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Exercise of options
|
|
|
1,604,819 |
|
|
|
160 |
|
|
|
(3,233 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
6,030 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,957 |
|
Tax benefit of options exercised
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
526 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
526 |
|
Amortization of deferred compensation, net
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,234 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,234 |
|
Effect of New Valley share repurchase
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
786 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
786 |
|
Other, net
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,507 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1,507 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance, December 31, 2002
|
|
|
36,439,285 |
|
|
|
3,643 |
|
|
|
279,305 |
|
|
|
(236,718 |
) |
|
|
(12,303 |
) |
|
|
(11,630 |
) |
|
|
22,297 |
|
Net loss
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(15,610 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(15,610 |
) |
|
Pension related minimum liability adjustments
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
17 |
|
|
|
17 |
|
|
Unrealized gain on investment securities
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,278 |
|
|
|
2,278 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total other comprehensive income
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,295 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total comprehensive loss
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(13,315 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Distributions on common stock
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(59,997 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(59,997 |
) |
Effect of stock dividend
|
|
|
1,850,126 |
|
|
|
185 |
|
|
|
28,085 |
|
|
|
(28,270 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Exercise of warrants and options
|
|
|
731,778 |
|
|
|
74 |
|
|
|
1,055 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
620 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,749 |
|
Tax benefit of options exercised
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,037 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,037 |
|
Amortization of deferred compensation, net
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
586 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
586 |
|
Effect of New Valley share repurchase
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
75 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
75 |
|
Other, net
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
93 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
93 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance, December 31, 2003
|
|
|
39,021,189 |
|
|
|
3,902 |
|
|
|
251,239 |
|
|
|
(280,598 |
) |
|
|
(11,683 |
) |
|
|
(9,335 |
) |
|
|
(46,475 |
) |
Net income
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6,728 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6,728 |
|
|
Pension related minimum liability adjustments
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
885 |
|
|
|
885 |
|
|
Unrealized loss on investment securities
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1,959 |
) |
|
|
(1,959 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total other comprehensive loss
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1,074 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total comprehensive income
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5,654 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Distributions on common stock
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(64,106 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(64,106 |
) |
Effect of stock dividend
|
|
|
1,987,129 |
|
|
|
199 |
|
|
|
29,469 |
|
|
|
(29,668 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Restricted stock grants
|
|
|
40,000 |
|
|
|
4 |
|
|
|
(4 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Exercise of warrants and options, net of 332,022 shares
delivered to pay exercise price
|
|
|
724,954 |
|
|
|
72 |
|
|
|
7,589 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(4,469 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
3,192 |
|
Tax benefit of options exercised
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,990 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,990 |
|
Amortization of deferred compensation, net
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
372 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
372 |
|
Note conversion
|
|
|
319 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
8 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
8 |
|
Effect of New Valley share repurchase
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(63 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(63 |
) |
Beneficial conversion feature of notes payable
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
13,625 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
13,625 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance, December 31, 2004
|
|
|
41,773,591 |
|
|
$ |
4,177 |
|
|
$ |
241,119 |
|
|
$ |
(303,538 |
) |
|
$ |
(16,152 |
) |
|
$ |
(10,409 |
) |
|
$ |
(84,803 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The accompanying notes are an integral part of the consolidated
financial statements.
F-6
VECTOR GROUP LTD. AND SUBSIDIARIES
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS
(Dollars in Thousands, Except Per Share Amounts)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31, | |
|
|
| |
|
|
2004 | |
|
2003 | |
|
2002 | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
Cash flows from operating activities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income (loss)
|
|
$ |
6,728 |
|
|
$ |
(15,610 |
) |
|
$ |
(31,794 |
) |
|
Discontinued operations
|
|
|
(2,689 |
) |
|
|
(522 |
) |
|
|
(25 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4,039 |
|
|
|
(16,132 |
) |
|
|
(31,819 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Adjustments to reconcile net income (loss) to net cash provided
by (used in) operating activities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Depreciation and amortization
|
|
|
11,823 |
|
|
|
14,728 |
|
|
|
13,809 |
|
|
|
Non-cash stock-based expense
|
|
|
578 |
|
|
|
906 |
|
|
|
3,534 |
|
|
|
Non-cash portion of restructuring and impairment charges
|
|
|
44,241 |
|
|
|
21,064 |
|
|
|
3,460 |
|
|
|
Loss on retirement of debt
|
|
|
5,333 |
|
|
|
1,721 |
|
|
|
1,320 |
|
|
|
Minority interests
|
|
|
9,027 |
|
|
|
(2,976 |
) |
|
|
(10,379 |
) |
|
|
Gain on sale of investment securities available for sale
|
|
|
(8,518 |
) |
|
|
(301 |
) |
|
|
(9,249 |
) |
|
|
(Gain) loss on long-term investments
|
|
|
(146 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
7,628 |
|
|
|
(Gain) loss on sale of assets
|
|
|
14 |
|
|
|
(2,202 |
) |
|
|
(57 |
) |
|
|
Write-down of equipment
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
804 |
|
|
|
Deferred income taxes
|
|
|
(14,230 |
) |
|
|
(5,954 |
) |
|
|
1,169 |
|
|
|
Equity (income) loss in non-consolidated real estate businesses
|
|
|
(9,782 |
) |
|
|
(901 |
) |
|
|
749 |
|
|
|
Distributions from non-consolidated real estate businesses
|
|
|
5,840 |
|
|
|
991 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Non-cash interest expense
|
|
|
4,644 |
|
|
|
5,885 |
|
|
|
5,062 |
|
|
|
Provision for uncollectibility of notes receivable
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
13,198 |
|
|
Changes in assets and liabilities (net of effect of acquisitions
and dispositions):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Receivables
|
|
|
7,961 |
|
|
|
4,350 |
|
|
|
23,278 |
|
|
|
Inventories
|
|
|
10,774 |
|
|
|
(26,978 |
) |
|
|
(48,590 |
) |
|
|
Accounts payable and accrued liabilities
|
|
|
(21,040 |
) |
|
|
13,324 |
|
|
|
8,069 |
|
|
|
Cash payments on restructuring liabilities
|
|
|
(6,458 |
) |
|
|
(236 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other assets and liabilities, net
|
|
|
(1,221 |
) |
|
|
6,726 |
|
|
|
6,376 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash provided by (used in) operating activities
|
|
|
42,879 |
|
|
|
14,015 |
|
|
|
(11,638 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash flows from investing activities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Proceeds from sale of businesses and assets, net
|
|
|
25,713 |
|
|
|
2,723 |
|
|
|
3,644 |
|
|
Sale or maturity of investment securities
|
|
|
68,357 |
|
|
|
135,737 |
|
|
|
111,795 |
|
|
Purchase of investment securities
|
|
|
(12,197 |
) |
|
|
(68,978 |
) |
|
|
(75,095 |
) |
|
Sale or liquidation of long-term investments
|
|
|
576 |
|
|
|
1,004 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Purchase of long-term investments
|
|
|
(409 |
) |
|
|
(195 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
Purchase of Medallion
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(50,103 |
) |
|
Decrease (increase) in restricted assets
|
|
|
1,157 |
|
|
|
(1,479 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
Proceeds from sale of real estate, net
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
18,798 |
|
|
Investment in non-consolidated real estate businesses
|
|
|
(4,500 |
) |
|
|
(11,000 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
Issuance of note receivable, net
|
|
|
(1,750 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(4,000 |
) |
|
Payment of prepetition claims
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(74 |
) |
|
|
(2,026 |
) |
|
Capital expenditures
|
|
|
(4,294 |
) |
|
|
(8,894 |
) |
|
|
(42,378 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash provided by (used in) investing activities
|
|
|
72,653 |
|
|
|
48,844 |
|
|
|
(39,365 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The accompanying notes are an integral part of the consolidated
financial statements.
F-7
VECTOR GROUP LTD. AND SUBSIDIARIES
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS
(Dollars in Thousands, Except Per Share Amounts)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31, | |
|
|
| |
|
|
2004 | |
|
2003 | |
|
2002 | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
Cash flows from financing activities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Proceeds from debt
|
|
|
66,905 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
37,635 |
|
|
Repayments of debt
|
|
|
(84,425 |
) |
|
|
(31,064 |
) |
|
|
(23,338 |
) |
|
Deferred financing charges
|
|
|
(2,918 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(930 |
) |
|
Borrowings under revolver
|
|
|
531,467 |
|
|
|
629,699 |
|
|
|
612,121 |
|
|
Repayments on revolver
|
|
|
(531,450 |
) |
|
|
(629,699 |
) |
|
|
(612,121 |
) |
|
Distributions on common stock
|
|
|
(64,106 |
) |
|
|
(59,997 |
) |
|
|
(54,477 |
) |
|
Repayments of notes receivable
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(12,445 |
) |
|
Proceeds from exercise of Vector options and warrants
|
|
|
3,233 |
|
|
|
1,749 |
|
|
|
2,957 |
|
|
Proceeds from exercise of New Valley warrants
|
|
|
91 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
New Valley repurchase of common shares
|
|
|
(202 |
) |
|
|
(1,346 |
) |
|
|
(1,891 |
) |
|
Other, net
|
|
|
(17 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash used in financing activities
|
|
|
(81,422 |
) |
|
|
(90,658 |
) |
|
|
(52,489 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash provided by (used in) discontinued operations
|
|
|
1,086 |
|
|
|
2,580 |
|
|
|
(14,242 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net increase (decrease) in cash and cash equivalents
|
|
|
35,196 |
|
|
|
(25,219 |
) |
|
|
(117,734 |
) |
Cash and cash equivalents, beginning of year
|
|
|
74,808 |
|
|
|
100,027 |
|
|
|
217,761 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents, end of year
|
|
$ |
110,004 |
|
|
$ |
74,808 |
|
|
$ |
100,027 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The accompanying notes are an integral part of the consolidated
financial statements.
F-8
VECTOR GROUP LTD.
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(Dollars in Thousands, Except Per Share Amounts)
|
|
1. |
SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES |
(a) Basis of Presentation:
The consolidated financial statements include the accounts of
Vector Group Ltd. (the Company or
Vector) and its wholly-owned and majority-owned
subsidiaries, including VGR Holding Inc. (VGR
Holding), Liggett Group Inc. (Liggett), Vector
Tobacco Inc. (Vector Tobacco), Liggett Vector Brands
Inc. (Liggett Vector Brands), New Valley Corporation
(New Valley) and other less significant
subsidiaries. The Company owned 58.2% of the common shares of
New Valley at December 31, 2004. Investments in affiliated
companies over which the Company has a significant influence of
ownership of more than 20% but less than or equal to 50% are
accounted for under the equity method. Investments of 20% or
less over which the Company has no significant influence are
accounted for under the cost method. All significant
intercompany balances and transactions have been eliminated.
Certain amounts in prior years consolidated financial
statements have been reclassified to conform to the current
years presentation.
Liggett is engaged in the manufacture and sale of cigarettes in
the United States. Vector Tobacco is engaged in the development
and marketing of low nicotine and nicotine-free cigarette
products and the development of reduced risk cigarette products.
New Valley is currently engaged in the real estate business and
is seeking to acquire additional operating companies and real
estate properties.
As discussed in Note 20, New Valleys real estate
leasing operations are presented as discontinued operations for
the three years ended December 31, 2004.
As discussed in Note 3, a subsidiary of the Company
acquired The Medallion Company, Inc. on April 1, 2002.
(b) Estimates and Assumptions:
The preparation of financial statements in conformity with
accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of
America requires management to make estimates and assumptions
that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities,
disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities and the reported
amounts of revenues and expenses. Significant estimates subject
to material changes in the near term include restructuring and
impairment charges, inventory valuation, deferred tax assets,
allowance for doubtful accounts, promotional accruals, sales
returns and allowances, actuarial assumptions of pension plans,
embedded derivative liability, settlement accruals and
litigation and defense costs. Actual results could differ from
those estimates.
(c) Cash and Cash Equivalents:
For purposes of the statements of cash flows, cash includes cash
on hand, cash on deposit in banks and cash equivalents,
comprised of short-term investments which have an original
maturity of 90 days or less. Interest on short-term
investments is recognized when earned.
(d) Financial Instruments:
The carrying value of cash and cash equivalents, restricted
assets and short-term loans are reasonable estimates of their
fair value.
The carrying amounts of short-term debt reported in the
consolidated balance sheets are a reasonable estimate of fair
value. The fair value of long-term debt for the years ended
December 31, 2004 and December 31, 2003 was estimated
based on current market quotations, where available.
As required by Statement of Financial Accounting Standards
(SFAS) No. 133, derivatives embedded within the
Companys convertible debt are recognized on the
Companys balance sheet and are stated at
F-9
VECTOR GROUP LTD.
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(Dollars in Thousands, Except Per Share
Amounts) (Continued)
estimated fair value at each reporting period. Changes in the
fair value of the embedded derivatives are reflected quarterly
as an adjustment to interest expense.
The methods and assumptions used by the Companys
management in estimating fair values for financial instruments
presented herein are not necessarily indicative of the amounts
the Company could realize in a current market exchange. The use
of different market assumptions and/or estimation methodologies
may have a material effect on the estimated fair values.
(e) Investment Securities:
The Company classifies investments in debt and marketable equity
securities as available for sale. Investments classified as
available for sale are carried at fair value, with net
unrealized gains and losses included as a separate component of
stockholders equity. The cost of securities sold is
determined based on average cost.
Gains are recognized when realized in the Companys
consolidated statements of operations. Losses are recognized as
realized or upon the determination of the occurrence of an
other-than-temporary decline in fair value. The Companys
policy is to review its securities on a periodic basis to
evaluate whether any security has experienced an
other-than-temporary decline in fair value. If it is determined
that an other-than-temporary decline exists in one of the
Companys marketable securities, it is the Companys
policy to record an impairment charge with respect to such
investment in the Companys consolidated statements of
operations.
(f) Significant Concentrations of Credit Risk:
Financial instruments which potentially subject the Company to
concentrations of credit risk consist principally of cash and
cash equivalents and trade receivables. The Company places its
temporary cash in money market securities (investment grade or
better) with what management believes are high credit quality
financial institutions.
Liggetts customers are primarily candy and tobacco
distributors, the military and large grocery, drug and
convenience store chains. One customer accounted for
approximately 13.8% of Liggetts revenues in 2004, 16.6% of
Liggetts revenues in 2003 and 16.5% of Liggetts
revenues in 2002. Sales to this customer were primarily in the
private label discount segment. Concentrations of credit risk
with respect to trade receivables are generally limited due to
the large number of customers, located primarily throughout the
United States, comprising Liggetts customer base. Ongoing
credit evaluations of customers financial condition are
performed and, generally, no collateral is required. Liggett
maintains reserves for potential credit losses and such losses,
in the aggregate, have generally not exceeded managements
expectations.
(g) Accounts Receivable:
Accounts receivable-trade are recorded at their net realizable
value.
The allowance for doubtful accounts and cash discounts was $312
and $746 at December 31, 2004 and 2003, respectively.
(h) Inventories:
Tobacco inventories are stated at the lower of cost or market
and are determined primarily by the last-in, first-out
(LIFO) method at Liggett and the first-in, first out
(FIFO) method at Vector Tobacco. Although portions of leaf
tobacco inventories may not be used or sold within one year
because of the time required for aging, they are included in
current assets, which is common practice in the industry. It is
not practicable to determine the amount that will not be used or
sold within one year.
The Company recorded a charge to operations for LIFO layer
liquidations of $2,470 in 2004, $747 in 2003 and $509 in 2002.
F-10
VECTOR GROUP LTD.
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(Dollars in Thousands, Except Per Share
Amounts) (Continued)
In 2004, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (the
FASB) issued SFAS No. 151, Inventory
Costs. SFAS No. 151 requires that abnormal idle
facility expense and 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. The Company is required to
adopt the provisions of SFAS No. 151 prospectively
after January 1, 2006, but the effect of adoption is not
expected to have a material impact on its consolidated results
of operations, financial position or cash flows.
(i) Restricted Assets:
Current restricted assets of $606 at December 31, 2004 and
$771 at December 31, 2003 consist of amounts held in escrow
related to New Valleys real estate operations. Long-term
restricted assets of $4,374 and $5,571 at December 31, 2004
and December 31, 2003, respectively, consist primarily of
certificates of deposit which collateralize letters of credit.
(j) Property, Plant and Equipment:
Property, plant and equipment are stated at cost. Property,
plant and equipment are depreciated using the straight-line
method over the estimated useful lives of the respective assets,
which are 20 to 30 years for buildings and 3 to
10 years for machinery and equipment. Office buildings held
by New Valley are depreciated over periods approximating
39 years.
Interest costs are capitalized in connection with the
construction of major facilities. Capitalized interest is
recorded as part of the asset to which it relates and is
amortized over the assets estimated useful life. In 2002,
interest costs of $345 were capitalized. There were no
capitalized interest costs in 2004 and 2003.
Repairs and maintenance costs are charged to expense as
incurred. The costs of major renewals and betterments are
capitalized. The cost and related accumulated depreciation of
property, plant and equipment are removed from the accounts upon
retirement or other disposition and any resulting gain or loss
is reflected in operations.
(k) Intangible Assets:
The Company is required to conduct an annual review of
intangible assets for potential impairment including the
intangible asset of $107,511, which is not subject to
amortization due to its indefinite useful life, and relates to
Medallions exemption under the Master Settlement
Agreement. (Refer to Note 3.)
Other intangible assets, included in other assets, consisting of
trademarks and patent rights, are amortized using the
straight-line method over 10-12 years. The book value of
other intangible assets was $22,045 at December 31, 2004
and $21,998 at December 31, 2003 and the related
accumulated amortization was $21,113 and $20,936 at
December 31, 2004 and 2003, respectively. Amortization
expense for the years ended December 31, 2004, 2003 and
2002 was $177, $147 and $145, respectively. Based on the current
amount of intangible assets subject to amortization, the
estimated expense for each of the succeeding five years is $126
in 2005, $126 in 2006, $126 in 2007, $126 in 2008 and $126 in
2009 and $302 thereafter.
(l) Impairment of Long-Lived Assets:
The Company reviews long-lived assets for impairment annually or
whenever events or changes in business circumstances indicate
that the carrying amount of the assets may not be fully
recoverable. The Company performs undiscounted operating cash
flow analyses to determine if an impairment exists. If an
impairment is determined to exist, any related impairment loss
is calculated based on fair value of the asset on the basis of
discounted cash flow. Impairment losses on assets to be disposed
of, if any, are based on the estimated proceeds to be received,
less costs of disposal.
F-11
VECTOR GROUP LTD.
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(Dollars in Thousands, Except Per Share
Amounts) (Continued)
As discussed in Note 2, the Company recorded a $3,006 asset
impairment charge in 2004 relating to the Liggett Vector Brands
restructuring and an $18,752 asset impairment charge in 2003 in
connection with the closing of Vector Tobaccos Timberlake,
North Carolina cigarette manufacturing facility.
(m) Employee Benefits:
In 2002, Liggett sponsored self-insured health and dental
insurance plans for all eligible employees. The expense recorded
for such benefits contained an estimate of unpaid claims as of
December 31, 2002 which were subject to significant
fluctuations in the near term. In January 2003, Liggett
converted to fully-insured health and dental plans.
(n) Postretirement Benefits other than Pensions:
The cost of providing retiree health care and life insurance
benefits is actuarially determined and accrued over the service
period of the active employee group.
(o) Stock Options:
The Company accounts for employee stock compensation plans under
APB Opinion No. 25, Accounting for Stock Issued to
Employees with the intrinsic value-based method permitted
by SFAS No. 123, Accounting for Stock-Based
Compensation as amended by SFAS No. 148.
Accordingly, no compensation expense is recognized when the
exercise price is equal to the market price of the underlying
common stock on the date of grant.
Awards under the Companys stock compensation plans
generally vest over periods ranging from four to five years. The
expense related to stock option compensation included in the
determination of net income for 2004, 2003 and 2002 is less than
that which would have been recognized if the fair value method
had been applied to all awards since the original effective date
of SFAS No. 123. The following table illustrates the
effect on net income (loss) and income (loss) per share if the
Company had applied the fair value provisions of
SFAS No. 123, as amended by SFAS No. 148,
Accounting for Stock-Based Compensation
Transition and Disclosure an Amendment to FASB
Statement No. 123:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2004 | |
|
2003 | |
|
2002 | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
Net income (loss)
|
|
$ |
6,728 |
|
|
$ |
(15,610 |
) |
|
$ |
(31,794 |
) |
Add: stock option employee compensation expense included in
reported net income (loss), net of related tax effects
|
|
|
204 |
|
|
|
4,738 |
|
|
|
5,375 |
|
Deduct: total stock option employee compensation expense
determined under the fair value method for all awards, net of
related tax effects
|
|
|
(1,803 |
) |
|
|
(7,759 |
) |
|
|
(10,272 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pro forma net income (loss)
|
|
$ |
5,129 |
|
|
$ |
(18,631 |
) |
|
$ |
(36,691 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income (loss) per share:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Basic as reported
|
|
$ |
0.16 |
|
|
$ |
(0.38 |
) |
|
$ |
(0.82 |
) |
|
Basic pro forma
|
|
$ |
0.12 |
|
|
$ |
(0.46 |
) |
|
$ |
(0.95 |
) |
|
Diluted as reported
|
|
$ |
0.16 |
|
|
$ |
(0.38 |
) |
|
$ |
(0.82 |
) |
|
Diluted pro forma
|
|
$ |
0.12 |
|
|
$ |
(0.46 |
) |
|
$ |
(0.95 |
) |
For purposes of this pro forma presentation, the fair value of
each option grant was estimated at the date of the grant using
the Black-Scholes option pricing model. The Black-Scholes option
valuation model was developed for use in estimating the fair
value of traded options which have no vesting restrictions and
are fully transferable. In addition, option valuation models
require the input of highly subjective assumptions including
expected stock price characteristics which are significantly
different from those of traded options, and because
F-12
VECTOR GROUP LTD.
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(Dollars in Thousands, Except Per Share
Amounts) (Continued)
changes in the subjective input assumptions can materially
affect the fair value estimate, the existing models do not
necessarily provide a reliable single measure of the fair value
of stock-based compensation awards.
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. The Company will adopt this new standard
prospectively, on July 1, 2005, and has not yet determined
whether the adoption of SFAS No. 123R will have a
material impact on its consolidated financial position, results
of operations or cash flows.
(p) Income Taxes:
Deferred taxes reflect the impact of temporary differences
between the amounts of assets and liabilities recognized for
financial reporting purposes and the amounts recognized for tax
purposes as well as tax credit carryforwards and loss
carryforwards. These deferred taxes are measured by applying
currently enacted tax rates. A valuation allowance reduces
deferred tax assets when it is deemed more likely than not that
some portion or all of the deferred tax assets will not be
realized.
(q) Revenue Recognition:
Sales: Revenues from sales are recognized upon the
shipment of finished goods when title and risk of loss have
passed to the customer, there is persuasive evidence of an
arrangement, the sale price is determinable and collectibility
is reasonably assured. The Company provides an allowance for
expected sales returns, net of related inventory cost
recoveries. Certain sales incentives, including buydowns, are
classified as reductions of net sales in accordance with
Emerging Issues Task Force Issue (EITF)
No. 01-9, Accounting for Consideration Given by a
Vendor to a Customer (Including a Reseller of the Vendors
Products). Since the Companys primary line of
business is tobacco, the Companys financial position and
its results of operations and cash flows have been and could
continue to be materially adversely affected by significant unit
sales volume declines, litigation and defense costs, increased
tobacco costs or reductions in the selling price of cigarettes
in the near term.
Real Estate Leasing Revenues: The Company has leased real
estate properties to tenants under operating leases. Base rental
revenue is generally recognized on a straight-line basis over
the term of the lease. The lease agreements for certain
properties contain provisions which provide for reimbursement of
real estate taxes and operating expenses over base year amounts,
and in certain cases as fixed increases in rent. The future
minimum rents scheduled to be received on non-cancelable
operating leases at December 31, 2004 are $920 in 2005,
$988 in 2006, $1,018 in 2007, $1,041 in 2008, $1,023 in 2009 and
$3,279 thereafter.
Shipping and Handling Fees and Costs: Shipping and
handling fees related to sales transactions are neither billed
to customers nor recorded as revenue. Shipping and handling
costs, which were $6,805 in 2004, $5,620 in 2003 and $5,530 in
2002, are recorded as operating, selling, administrative and
general expenses.
(r) Advertising and Research and Development:
Advertising costs, which are expensed as incurred, were $4,920,
$19,473 and $15,544 for the years ended December 31, 2004,
2003 and 2002, respectively.
Research and development costs, primarily at Vector Tobacco, are
expensed as incurred, and were $9,177, $10,546 and $10,103 for
the years ended December 31, 2004, 2003 and 2002,
respectively.
(s) Legal Costs:
The Companys policy is to accrue legal and other costs
related to contingencies as services are performed.
F-13
VECTOR GROUP LTD.
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(Dollars in Thousands, Except Per Share
Amounts) (Continued)
(t) Earnings Per Share:
Information concerning the Companys common stock has been
adjusted to give effect to the 5% stock dividends paid to
Company stockholders on September 29, 2004,
September 29, 2003 and September 27, 2002. The
dividends were charged to retained earnings in the net amount of
$29,668 in 2004, $28,270 in 2003 and $22,279 in 2002 and were
based on the fair value of the Companys common stock. In
connection with each 5% dividend, the Company increased the
number of outstanding warrants and stock options by 5% and
reduced the exercise prices accordingly. All share amounts have
been presented as if the stock dividends had occurred on
January 1, 2002.
In March 2004, the Emerging Issues Task Force reached a final
consensus of EITF Issue No. 03-6, Participating
Securities and the Two-Class Method under FASB
Statement 128 (EITF 03-6), which
established standards regarding the computation of earnings per
share (EPS) by companies that have issued securities
other than common stock that contractually entitle the holder to
participate in dividends and earnings of the company.
EITF 03-6 was effective for interim periods ending
June 30, 2004 for calendar year companies. Earnings
available to common shareholders for the period are reduced by
the contingent interest and the non-cash interest expense
associated with the beneficial conversion feature and embedded
derivative related to the Companys convertible notes
issued in November 2004. These notes, which are a participating
security due to the contingent interest feature, had no impact
on EPS for the year ended December 31, 2004, as the
dividends on the common stock reduced earnings so there were no
unallocated earnings under EITF 03-6.
Diluted EPS are calculated by dividing income (loss) allocable
to common shareholders by the weighted average common shares
outstanding plus dilutive common stock. The Company noted that
the effect in 2004, 2003 and 2002 was anti-dilutive. The two
issues of the Companys convertible notes were excluded
from the computation of diluted income per share in 2004 as the
effect would have been anti-dilutive, resulting in higher
earnings per incremental share.
Basic net income per share is computed by dividing net income by
the weighted-average number of shares outstanding. Diluted net
income per share includes the dilutive effect of stock options,
vested restricted stock grants and warrants. Basic and diluted
EPS were calculated using the following shares for the years
ended December 31, 2004, 2003 and 2002:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2004 | |
|
2003 | |
|
2002 | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
Weighted-average shares for basic EPS
|
|
|
41,403,744 |
|
|
|
40,681,214 |
|
|
|
38,559,364 |
|
Plus incremental shares related to stock options and warrants
|
|
|
1,818,283 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weighted-average shares for diluted EPS
|
|
|
43,222,027 |
|
|
|
40,681,214 |
|
|
|
38,559,364 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Company had a net loss for the years ended December 31,
2003 and December 31, 2002. Therefore, the effect of the
common stock equivalents and convertible securities is excluded
from the computation of diluted net loss per share since the
effect is antidilutive for these years. Potentially dilutive
shares that were not included in the diluted loss per share
calculation were 1,822,508 in 2003 and 1,263,675 in 2002 which
shares are issuable upon the exercise of stock options and
warrants assuming the treasury stock method.
(u) Comprehensive Income (Loss):
Other comprehensive income (loss) is a component of
stockholders equity (deficit) and includes such items
as the Companys proportionate interest in New
Valleys capital transactions, unrealized gains and losses
on investment securities and minimum pension liability
adjustments. Total comprehensive income was $5,654 for the year
ended December 31, 2004, and total comprehensive loss was
$13,315 for the year ended December 31, 2003 and $43,087
for the year ended December 31, 2002.
F-14
VECTOR GROUP LTD.
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(Dollars in Thousands, Except Per Share
Amounts) (Continued)
The changes in the components of other comprehensive income
(loss), net of taxes, were as follows for the years ended
December 31, 2004, 2003 and 2002, respectively.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31, | |
|
|
| |
|
|
2004 | |
|
2003 | |
|
2002 | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
Net income (loss)
|
|
$ |
6,728 |
|
|
$ |
(15,610 |
) |
|
$ |
(31,794 |
) |
|
Net unrealized gains (losses) on investment securities
available for sale:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Change in net unrealized gains (losses), net of income taxes and
minority interests
|
|
|
1,311 |
|
|
|
3,059 |
|
|
|
(2,897 |
) |
|
Net unrealized gains reclassified into net income (loss), net of
income taxes and minority interests
|
|
|
(3,270 |
) |
|
|
(781 |
) |
|
|
2,694 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1,959 |
) |
|
|
2,278 |
|
|
|
(203 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net change in additional minimum pension liability, net of
income taxes
|
|
|
885 |
|
|
|
17 |
|
|
|
(11,090 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Comprehensive income (loss)
|
|
$ |
5,654 |
|
|
$ |
(13,315 |
) |
|
$ |
(43,087 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The components of accumulated other comprehensive loss, net of
taxes, were as follows as of December 31, 2004 and 2003,
respectively.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31, 2004 | |
|
December 31, 2003 | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
Net unrealized gains on investment securities available for sale
|
|
$ |
748 |
|
|
$ |
2,707 |
|
|
Additional pension liability
|
|
|
(11,157 |
) |
|
|
(12,042 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accumulated other comprehensive loss
|
|
$ |
(10,409 |
) |
|
$ |
(9,335 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(v) New Accounting Pronouncements:
In March 2004, the FASB reached a consensus on Emerging Issues
Task Force Issue 03-1, The Meaning of
Other-Than-Temporary Impairment and Its Application to Certain
Investments (EITF 03-1). EITF 03-1
provides guidance for determining when an investment is impaired
and whether the impairment is other than temporary.
EITF 03-1 also incorporates into its consensus the required
disclosures about unrealized losses on investments announced by
the EITF in late 2003 and adds new disclosure requirements
relating to cost-method investments. The impairment accounting
guidance is effective for reporting periods beginning after
June 15, 2004 and the new disclosure requirements for
annual reporting periods ending after June 15, 2004. The
adoption of the impairment guidance contained in EITF 03-1
did not have a material impact on the Companys financial
position or results of operations.
In December 2003, the FASB issued SFAS No. 132(R),
which replaces SFAS No. 132, Employers
Disclosures about Pensions and Other Postretirement
Benefits. SFAS No. 132(R) does not change the
measurement and recognition provisions of SFAS No. 87,
SFAS No. 88, Employers Accounting for
Settlements and Curtailments of Defined Benefit Pension Plans
and for Termination Benefits, and SFAS No. 106,
Employers Accounting for Postretirement Benefits
Other Than Pensions, however, it includes additional
disclosure provisions for annual reporting, including detailed
plan asset information by category, expanded benefit obligation
disclosure and key assumptions. In addition, interim disclosures
related to the individual elements of plan costs and
employers current year contributions are required. (See
Note 10.)
In December 2003, Financial Accounting Standards Board
Interpretation (FIN) No. 46(R),
Consolidation of Variable Interest Entities (revised
December 2003), was issued. The interpretation revises FIN
No. 46, Consolidation of Variable Interest
Entities, to exempt certain entities from the requirements
of FIN No. 46. The interpretation requires a company to
consolidate a variable interest equity (VIE), as
defined, when the company will absorb a majority of the variable
interest entitys expected losses, receive a majority of
F-15
VECTOR GROUP LTD.
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(Dollars in Thousands, Except Per Share
Amounts) (Continued)
the variable interest entitys expected residual returns,
or both. FIN No. 46(R) also requires consolidation of
existing, non-controlled affiliates if the VIE is unable to
finance its operations without investor support, or where the
other investors do not have exposure to the significant risks
and rewards of ownership. The adoption of this interpretation
did not impact the Companys consolidated financial
statements.
Liggett Vector Brands Restructurings. During April 2004,
Liggett Vector Brands adopted a restructuring plan in its
continuing effort to adjust the cost structure of the
Companys tobacco business and improve operating
efficiency. As part of the plan, Liggett Vector Brands
eliminated 83 positions and consolidated operations, subletting
its New York office space and relocating several employees. As a
result of these actions, the Company recognized pre-tax
restructuring charges of $2,735 in 2004, including $798 relating
to employee severance and benefit costs and $1,937 for contract
termination and other associated costs. Approximately $503 of
these charges represent non-cash items.
On October 6, 2004, the Company announced an additional
plan to further restructure the operations of Liggett Vector
Brands, its sales, marketing and distribution agent for its
Liggett and Vector Tobacco subsidiaries. Liggett Vector Brands
has realigned its sales force and adjusted its business model to
more efficiently serve its chain and independent accounts
nationwide. Liggett Vector Brands is seeking to expand the
portfolio of private and control label partner brands by
utilizing a pricing strategy that offers long-term list price
stability for customers. In connection with the restructuring,
the Company eliminated approximately 330 full-time
positions and 135 part-time positions as of
December 15, 2004.
As a result of the actions announced in October 2004, the
Company currently expects to realize annual cost savings of
approximately $30,000 beginning in 2005. The Company recognized
pre-tax restructuring charges of $10,583. Approximately $5,659
of the charges related to employee severance and benefit costs
and approximately $4,924 to contract termination and other
associated costs. Approximately $2,503 of these charges
represented non-cash items. Additionally, the Company incurred
other charges in 2004 for various compensation and related
payments to employees which are related to the restructuring.
These charges of $1,670 were included in selling, general and
administrative expenses.
The components of the combined pre-tax restructuring charges
relating to the 2004 Liggett Vector Brands restructurings for
the year ended December 31, 2004 are as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Employee | |
|
Non-Cash | |
|
Contract | |
|
|
|
|
Severance | |
|
Asset | |
|
Termination/ | |
|
|
|
|
and Benefits | |
|
Impairment | |
|
Exit Costs | |
|
Total | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
Balance, December 31, 2003
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
Restructuring charges
|
|
|
6,457 |
|
|
|
3,006 |
|
|
|
3,840 |
|
|
|
13,303 |
|
Change in estimate
|
|
|
(26 |
) |
|
|
(15 |
) |
|
|
56 |
|
|
|
15 |
|
Utilized
|
|
|
(2,817 |
) |
|
|
(2,805 |
) |
|
|
(611 |
) |
|
|
(6,233 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance, December 31, 2004
|
|
$ |
3,614 |
|
|
$ |
186 |
|
|
$ |
3,285 |
|
|
$ |
7,085 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Timberlake Restructuring. In October 2003, the Company
announced that it would close Vector Tobaccos Timberlake,
North Carolina cigarette manufacturing facility in order to
reduce excess tobacco production capacity and improve operating
efficiencies company-wide. Production of the QUEST line of low
nicotine and nicotine-free cigarettes, as well as production of
Vector Tobaccos other cigarette brands, has been moved to
Liggetts state-of-the-art manufacturing facility in
Mebane, North Carolina.
The Mebane facility currently produces approximately
9 billion units per year, but maintains the capacity to
produce 16 billion units per year. Vector Tobacco has
contracted with Liggett to produce its cigarettes, and all
production was transitioned from Timberlake to Mebane by
December 31, 2003. As part of the transition, Vector
eliminated approximately 150 positions.
F-16
VECTOR GROUP LTD.
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(Dollars in Thousands, Except Per Share
Amounts) (Continued)
As a result of these actions, the Company recognized pre-tax
restructuring and impairment charges of $21,696, of which
$21,300 was recognized in 2003 and the remaining $396 was
recognized in 2004. Machinery and equipment to be disposed of
was reduced to estimated fair value less costs to sell during
2003 and was carried on the accompanying December 31, 2003
consolidated balance sheets as assets held for sale.
In July 2004, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Vector Tobacco
completed the sale of its Timberlake facility, along with all
equipment. (Refer to Note 6.) The Company decreased the
asset impairment accrual as of June 30, 2004 by $871 to
reflect the actual amounts to be realized from the Timberlake
sale and to reduce the values of other excess Vector Tobacco
machinery and equipment in accordance with
SFAS No. 144, Accounting for the Impairment or
Disposal of Long-Lived Assets. The $871 was reallocated to
employee severance and benefits ($507) and contract termination
costs ($364) due to higher than anticipated costs in those
areas. The Company further adjusted the previously recorded
restructuring accrual as of June 30, 2004 to reflect
additional employee severance and benefits, contract termination
and associated costs resulting from the Timberlake sale. No
charge to operations resulted from these adjustments as there
was no change to the total impairment and restructuring accruals
previously recognized.
The components of the pre-tax restructuring charge relating to
the closing of Vector Tobaccos Timberlake, North Carolina
cigarette manufacturing facility for 2003 and 2004 are as
follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Employee | |
|
Non-Cash | |
|
Contract | |
|
|
|
|
Severance | |
|
Asset | |
|
Termination/ | |
|
|
|
|
and Benefits | |
|
Impairment | |
|
Exit Costs | |
|
Total | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
Balance, December 31, 2002
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
Original charges
|
|
|
2,045 |
|
|
|
18,752 |
|
|
|
503 |
|
|
|
21,300 |
|
Utilized in 2003
|
|
|
(182 |
) |
|
|
(18,752 |
) |
|
|
(54 |
) |
|
|
(18,988 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance, December 31, 2003
|
|
|
1,863 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
449 |
|
|
|
2,312 |
|
Restructuring and impairment charges
|
|
|
175 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
221 |
|
|
|
396 |
|
Change in estimate
|
|
|
507 |
|
|
|
(871 |
) |
|
|
364 |
|
|
|
|
|
Utilized/recoveries in 2004, net
|
|
|
(2,078 |
) |
|
|
871 |
|
|
|
(982 |
) |
|
|
(2,189 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance, December 31, 2004
|
|
$ |
467 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
52 |
|
|
$ |
519 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Annual cost savings related to the Timberlake restructuring and
impairment charges and the actions taken at Liggett Vector
Brands in the first half of 2004 are currently expected to be at
least $23,000 beginning in 2004. Management believes the
anticipated annual cost savings have been achieved beginning in
2004. Management continues to review opportunities for
additional cost savings in the Companys tobacco business.
On April 1, 2002, a subsidiary of the Company acquired 100%
of the stock of The Medallion Company, Inc.
(Medallion), and related assets from
Medallions principal stockholder. Following the purchase
of the Medallion stock, Vector Tobacco merged into Medallion and
Medallion changed its name to Vector Tobacco Inc. The total
purchase price consisted of $50,000 in cash and $60,000 in
notes, with the notes guaranteed by the Company and by Liggett.
(See Note 8.) Medallion, a discount cigarette manufacturer,
is a participant in the Master Settlement Agreement between the
state Attorneys General and the tobacco industry. Medallion has
no payment obligations under the Master Settlement Agreement
except to the extent its market share exceeds approximately
0.28% of total cigarettes sold in the United States. The results
of operations of Medallion are included in the Companys
financial statements beginning April 1, 2002.
In connection with the acquisition, the Company recorded a
$107,511 intangible asset, which relates to Medallions
exemption under the Master Settlement Agreement and has been
included with the Liggett segment for segment reporting
purposes. This intangible asset has an indefinite useful life
and is not subject to amortization.
F-17
VECTOR GROUP LTD.
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(Dollars in Thousands, Except Per Share
Amounts) (Continued)
The following table presents unaudited pro forma results of
operations as if the Medallion acquisition had occurred
immediately prior to January 1, 2002. These pro forma
results have been prepared for comparative purposes only and do
not purport to be indicative of what would have occurred had
these transactions been consummated as of such date.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended | |
|
|
December 31, 2002 | |
|
|
| |
Revenues
|
|
$ |
517,939 |
|
|
|
|
|
Net loss
|
|
$ |
(33,084 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Net loss per common share:
|
|
|
|
|
|
Basic
|
|
$ |
(0.86 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
Diluted
|
|
$ |
(0.86 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
4. |
INVESTMENT SECURITIES AVAILABLE FOR SALE |
Investment securities classified as available for sale are
carried at fair value, with net unrealized gains or losses
included as a component of stockholders equity, net of
taxes and minority interests. For the years ended
December 31, 2004 and 2003, net realized gains were $8,664
and $1,955, respectively, and for the year ended
December 31, 2002, net realized losses were $6,240. During
2002, the Company recorded a loss of $6,776 related to
other-than-temporary declines in the fair value of marketable
equity securities held by New Valley and $852 related to an
other-than-temporary decline in the fair value of marketable
debt securities.
The components of investment securities available for sale at
December 31, 2004 and 2003 are as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gross | |
|
Gross | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Unrealized | |
|
Unrealized | |
|
Fair | |
|
|
Cost | |
|
Gain | |
|
Loss | |
|
Value | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
2004
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Marketable equity securities
|
|
$ |
5,886 |
|
|
$ |
2,211 |
|
|
$ |
(258 |
) |
|
$ |
7,839 |
|
Marketable debt securities
|
|
|
7,123 |
|
|
|
8 |
|
|
|
(43 |
) |
|
|
7,088 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
13,009 |
|
|
$ |
2,219 |
|
|
$ |
(301 |
) |
|
$ |
14,927 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2003
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Marketable equity securities
|
|
$ |
11,535 |
|
|
$ |
6,411 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
17,946 |
|
Marketable debt securities
|
|
|
50,051 |
|
|
|
447 |
|
|
|
(923 |
) |
|
|
49,575 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
61,586 |
|
|
$ |
6,858 |
|
|
$ |
(923 |
) |
|
$ |
67,521 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
F-18
VECTOR GROUP LTD.
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(Dollars in Thousands, Except Per Share
Amounts) (Continued)
Inventories consist of:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31, | |
|
|
| |
|
|
2004 | |
|
2003 | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
Leaf tobacco
|
|
$ |
35,416 |
|
|
$ |
80,239 |
|
Other raw materials
|
|
|
3,400 |
|
|
|
3,060 |
|
Work-in-process
|
|
|
1,610 |
|
|
|
1,609 |
|
Finished goods
|
|
|
42,003 |
|
|
|
42,825 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Inventories at current cost
|
|
|
82,429 |
|
|
|
127,733 |
|
LIFO adjustments
|
|
|
(3,488 |
) |
|
|
(1,018 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
78,941 |
|
|
$ |
126,715 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Company has a leaf inventory management program whereby,
among other things, it is committed to purchase certain
quantities of leaf tobacco. The purchase commitments are for
quantities not in excess of anticipated requirements and are at
prices, including carrying costs, established at the date of the
commitment. At December 31, 2004, Liggett had leaf tobacco
purchase commitments of approximately $5,902. There were no leaf
tobacco purchase commitments at Vector Tobacco at that date.
Included in the above table was approximately $1,595 at
December 31, 2004 and $44,220 at December 31, 2003 of
inventory associated with Vector Tobaccos QUEST product.
During the second quarter of 2004, based on an analysis of the
market data obtained since the introduction of the QUEST
product, the Company determined to postpone indefinitely the
national launch of QUEST and, accordingly, the Company
recognized a non-cash charge of $37,000 to adjust the carrying
value of excess leaf tobacco inventory for the QUEST product,
based on estimated future demand and market conditions.
LIFO inventories represent approximately 85% and 58% of total
inventories at December 31, 2004 and December 31,
2003, respectively.
|
|
6. |
PROPERTY, PLANT AND EQUIPMENT |
Property, plant and equipment consist of:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31, | |
|
|
| |
|
|
2004 | |
|
2003 | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
Land and improvements
|
|
$ |
1,418 |
|
|
$ |
10,019 |
|
Buildings
|
|
|
13,431 |
|
|
|
74,326 |
|
Machinery and equipment
|
|
|
93,700 |
|
|
|
105,032 |
|
Leasehold improvements
|
|
|
3,045 |
|
|
|
1,023 |
|
Construction-in-progress
|
|
|
3,240 |
|
|
|
1,554 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
114,834 |
|
|
|
191,954 |
|
Less accumulated depreciation
|
|
|
(49,477 |
) |
|
|
(48,358 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
65,357 |
|
|
$ |
143,596 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Depreciation and amortization expense for the years ended
December 31, 2004, 2003 and 2002 was $11,823,
$14,696 and $13,813, respectively. Future machinery and
equipment purchase commitments at Liggett were $4,935 at
December 31, 2004.
F-19
VECTOR GROUP LTD.
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(Dollars in Thousands, Except Per Share
Amounts) (Continued)
In February 2005, New Valley completed the sale of its two
office buildings in Princeton, New Jersey for $71,500. (Refer to
Notes 8 and 20). The buildings were classified as assets
held for sale on the balance sheet at December 31, 2004.
The Company recorded a $3,006 non-cash asset impairment charge
in 2004 relating to the Liggett Vector Brands restructuring, of
which $186 relates to machinery and equipment, and an $18,752
non-cash asset impairment charge in 2003 in conjunction with the
closing of Vector Tobaccos Timberlake, North Carolina
facility, of which $17,968 relates to machinery and equipment.
(See Note 2.)
In July 2004, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Vector Tobacco
completed the sale of its Timberlake, North Carolina
manufacturing facility along with all equipment to an affiliate
of the Flue-Cured Tobacco Cooperative Stabilization Corporation
for $25,800. In connection with the sale, the subsidiary of
Vector Tobacco entered into a consulting agreement to provide
certain services to the buyer for $400; all of this amount was
recognized as income in 2004. (See Notes 2 and 8.)
In July 2003, Liggett granted an unaffiliated third party an
option to purchase Liggetts former manufacturing facility
and other excess real estate in Durham, North Carolina with a
net book value at December 31, 2004 of approximately
$2,260. The option agreement permits the purchaser to acquire
the property during a two-year period expiring July 15,
2005, at a purchase price of $15,000. Liggett has received
non-refundable option fees of $1,250. Liggett will be entitled
to receive additional option fees of $250 during the remaining
option period. The option fees will generally be creditable
against the purchase price. The purchaser is currently seeking
financing for the transaction, and there can be no assurance the
sale of the property will occur.
During 2003, Liggett entered into sale-leaseback transactions in
which equipment with a book value of $4,483 was sold and leased
back from a third party as operating leases. Liggett received
cash of $2,386, and no gain or loss was recognized on these
transactions.
Long-term investments consist of investments in the following:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31, 2004 | |
|
December 31, 2003 | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
Carrying | |
|
Fair | |
|
Carrying | |
|
Fair | |
|
|
Value | |
|
Value | |
|
Value | |
|
Value | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
Limited partnerships
|
|
$ |
2,410 |
|
|
$ |
15,206 |
|
|
$ |
2,431 |
|
|
$ |
11,741 |
|
The principal business of the limited partnerships is investing
in real estate and investment securities. The estimated fair
value of the limited partnerships was provided by the
partnerships based on the indicated market values of the
underlying assets or investment portfolio. New Valley is an
investor in real estate partnerships where it has committed to
make additional investments of up to an aggregate of $734 at
December 31, 2004. New Valleys investments in limited
partnerships are illiquid and the ultimate realization of these
investments is subject to the performance of the underlying
partnership and its management by the general partners.
The Companys estimate of the fair value of its long-term
investments are subject to judgment and are not necessarily
indicative of the amounts that could be realized in the current
market.
F-20
VECTOR GROUP LTD.
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(Dollars in Thousands, Except Per Share
Amounts) (Continued)
|
|
8. |
NOTES PAYABLE, LONG-TERM DEBT AND OTHER OBLIGATIONS |
Notes payable, long-term debt and other obligations consist of:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31, | |
|
December 31, | |
|
|
2004 | |
|
2003 | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
Vector:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5% Variable Interest Senior Convertible Notes due 2011, net of
unamortized discount of $38,259*
|
|
$ |
28,646 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
6.25% Convertible Subordinated Notes due 2008
|
|
|
132,492 |
|
|
|
132,500 |
|
VGR Holding:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
10% Senior Secured Notes due 2006, net of unamortized
discount of $6,675
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
63,325 |
|
Liggett:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Revolving credit facility
|
|
|
17 |
|
|
|
|
|
Term loan under credit facility
|
|
|
4,411 |
|
|
|
5,190 |
|
Equipment loans
|
|
|
6,341 |
|
|
|
9,758 |
|
Vector Tobacco:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Notes payable
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5,999 |
|
Notes payable Medallion acquisition
|
|
|
35,000 |
|
|
|
38,125 |
|
V.T. Aviation:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Note payable
|
|
|
9,436 |
|
|
|
10,496 |
|
VGR Aviation:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Note payable
|
|
|
5,090 |
|
|
|
5,346 |
|
New Valley:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Note payable operating real estate
|
|
|
39,213 |
|
|
|
39,910 |
|
Other
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
90 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total notes payable, long-term debt and other obligations
|
|
|
260,646 |
|
|
|
310,739 |
|
Less:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Current maturities
|
|
|
(6,043 |
) |
|
|
(10,762 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Amount due after one year
|
|
$ |
254,603 |
|
|
$ |
299,977 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* |
The fair value of the derivatives embedded within these notes
($25,686) is separately classified as a derivatives liability in
the consolidated balance sheet and the beneficial conversion
feature ($13,625) is recorded as additional paid-in capital. |
5% Variable Interest Senior Convertible Notes Due November
2011 Vector:
In November 2004, the Company sold $65,500 of its 5% variable
interest senior convertible notes due November 15, 2011 in
a private offering to qualified institutional investors in
accordance with Rule 144A under the Securities Act of 1933.
The buyers of the notes had the right, for a 120-day period
ending March 18, 2005, to purchase an additional $16,375 of
the notes. At December 31, 2004, buyers had exercised their
rights to purchase an additional $1,405 of the notes, and the
balance of the remaining additional notes were purchased during
the first quarter of 2005. The additional notes issued in the
first quarter of 2005 are convertible at the initial conversion
price of $19.57 into 764,384 shares of the Companys common
stock,
F-21
VECTOR GROUP LTD.
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(Dollars in Thousands, Except Per Share
Amounts) (Continued)
which could dilute future earnings per share. The net proceeds
of the initial issuance of the notes were used in November 2004
to redeem all of VGR Holdings outstanding 10% senior
secured notes due March 31, 2006.
The notes pay interest on a quarterly basis at a rate of
5% per year with an additional amount of interest payable
on the notes on each interest payment date. This additional
amount is based on the amount of cash dividends actually paid by
the Company per share on its common stock during the prior
three-month period ending on the record date for such interest
payment multiplied by the number of shares of its common stock
into which the notes are convertible on such record date
(together, the Total Interest). Notwithstanding the
foregoing, however, during the period from November 18,
2004 to November 15, 2006, the interest payable on each
interest payment date will be the higher of (i) the Total
Interest and
(ii) 63/4% per
year. The notes are convertible into the Companys common
stock, at the holders option. The initial conversion price
of $19.57 per share is subject to adjustment for various
events, including the issuance of stock dividends.
The notes will mature on November 15, 2011. The Company
must redeem 12.5% of the total aggregate principal amount of the
notes outstanding on November 15, 2009. In addition to such
redemption amount, the Company will also redeem on
November 15, 2009 and on each interest accrual period
thereafter an additional amount, if any, of the notes necessary
to prevent the notes from being treated as an Applicable
High Yield Discount Obligation under the Internal Revenue
Code. The holders of the notes will have the option on
November 15, 2009 to require the Company to repurchase some
or all of their remaining notes. The redemption price for such
redemptions will equal 100% of the principal amount of the notes
plus accrued interest. If a fundamental change occurs, the
Company will be required to offer to repurchase the notes at
100% of their principal amount, plus accrued interest and, under
certain circumstances, a make-whole premium payable
in cash and/or common stock.
Embedded Derivatives. The portion of the Total Interest
on the notes which is computed by reference to the cash
dividends paid on the Companys common stock is considered
an embedded derivative. Pursuant to SFAS No. 133,
Accounting for Derivative Instruments and Hedging
Activities, as amended by SFAS No. 138,
Accounting for Certain Derivative Instruments and Certain
Hedging Activities, the Company has bifurcated this
dividend portion of the interest on the notes and, based on a
valuation by an independent third party, estimated the fair
value of the embedded derivative liability. At issuance of the
notes, the estimated initial fair value was $24,738, which was
recorded as a discount to the notes and is classified as a
derivative liability on the consolidated balance sheet. At
December 31, 2004, with the issuance of $1,405 of
additional notes, the derivative liability was estimated at
$25,686. Changes to the fair value of this embedded derivative
are reflected quarterly as an adjustment to interest expense.
The Company recognized non-cash interest expense in 2004 of $412
due to changes in the fair value of the embedded derivative.
Beneficial Conversion Feature. After giving effect to the
recording of the embedded derivative liability as a discount to
the notes, the Companys common stock had a fair value at
the issuance date of the notes in excess of the conversion price
resulting in a beneficial conversion feature. Emerging Issues
Task Force (EITF) No. 98-5, Accounting for
Convertible Securities with Beneficial Conversion Features or
Contingently Adjustable Convertible Ratios, requires that
the intrinsic value of the beneficial conversion feature
($13,625 on the issuance dates) be recorded to additional
paid-in capital and as a discount on the notes. The discount is
then amortized to interest expense over the term of the notes
using the effective interest rate method. The Company recognized
non-cash interest expense in 2004 of $247 due to the
amortization of the debt discount attributable to the beneficial
conversion feature.
6.25% Convertible Subordinated Notes Due July 15,
2008 Vector:
In July 2001, Vector completed the sale of $172,500 (net
proceeds of approximately $166,400) of its
6.25% convertible subordinated notes due July 15, 2008
through a private offering to qualified institutional investors
in accordance with Rule 144A under the Securities Act of
1933. The notes pay interest at 6.25% per
F-22
VECTOR GROUP LTD.
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(Dollars in Thousands, Except Per Share
Amounts) (Continued)
annum and are convertible into Vectors common stock, at
the option of the holder. The conversion price, which was
$24.66 per share at December 31, 2004, is subject to
adjustment for various events, and any cash distribution on
Vectors common stock will result in a corresponding
decrease in the conversion price. In December 2001, $40,000 of
the notes were converted into Vectors common stock and, in
October 2004, an additional $8 of the notes were converted. A
total $132,492 of the notes were outstanding at
December 31, 2004.
Vector may redeem the notes, in whole or in part, at a price of
103.125% in the year beginning July 15, 2004, 102.083% in
the year beginning July 15, 2005, 101.042% in the year
beginning July 15, 2006 and 100% in the year beginning
July 15, 2007, together with accrued interest. If a change
of control occurs, Vector will be required to offer to
repurchase the notes at 101% of their principal amount, plus
accrued interest and, under certain circumstances, a make
whole payment.
10% Senior Secured Notes Due March 31,
2006 VGR Holding:
In May 2001, VGR Holding issued at a discount $60,000 principal
amount of 10% senior secured notes due March 31, 2006
in a private placement. VGR Holding received net proceeds from
the offering of approximately $46,500. In April 2002, VGR
Holding issued at a discount an additional $30,000 principal
amount of 10% senior secured notes due March 31, 2006
in a private placement and received net proceeds of
approximately $24,500. The notes were priced to provide the
purchasers with a 15.75% yield to maturity. The new notes were
on the same terms as the $60,000 principal amount of senior
secured notes previously issued. All of the notes were
guaranteed by the Company and by Liggett.
In November 2002, in connection with an amendment to the note
purchase agreement, VGR Holding repurchased $8,000 of the notes
at a price of 100% of the principal amount plus accrued
interest. The Company recognized a loss of $1,320 in 2002 on the
early extinguishment of debt.
In connection with an amendment to the note purchase agreement,
VGR Holding repurchased a total of $12,000 of the notes in 2003,
at a price of 100% of the principal amount plus accrued
interest. The Company recognized a loss of $1,721 in 2003 on the
early extinguishment of debt.
In August 2004, in connection with an amendment to the note
purchase agreement, VGR Holding repurchased $7,000 of the notes
at a price of 100% of the principal amount plus accrued
interest. In November 2004, the remaining $63,000 of the notes
were retired at par with the net proceeds from the
Companys issuance of convertible notes. The redemption
price, together with accrued unpaid interest, totaled
approximately $65,170. The Company recognized a loss of $5,333
in 2004 on the early extinguishment of debt.
Revolving Credit Facility Liggett:
In April 2004, Liggett entered into an Amended and Restated Loan
and Security Agreement with Congress Financial Corporation, as
lender. The $50,000 credit facility replaced Liggetts
previous $40,000 facility with Congress. A total of $17 was
outstanding under the facility at December 31, 2004.
Availability as determined under the facility was approximately
$33,063 based on eligible collateral at December 31, 2004.
The facility is collateralized by all inventories and
receivables of Liggett and a mortgage on its manufacturing
facility. Borrowings under the facility bear interest at a rate
equal to 1.0% above the prime rate of Wachovia Bank, N.A. (the
indirect parent of Congress). The facility requires
Liggetts compliance with certain financial and other
covenants including a restriction on Liggetts ability to
pay cash dividends unless Liggetts borrowing availability
under the facility for the 30-day period prior to the payment of
the dividend, and after giving effect to the dividend, is at
least $5,000 and no event of default has occurred under the
agreement, including Liggetts compliance with the
covenants in the credit facility, including an adjusted net
worth and working capital requirement. In addition, the facility
imposes requirements with respect to Liggetts adjusted net
worth (not to fall below $8,000 as computed in accordance with
the agreement) and working capital (not to fall
F-23
VECTOR GROUP LTD.
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(Dollars in Thousands, Except Per Share
Amounts) (Continued)
below a deficit of $17,000 as computed in accordance with the
agreement). At December 31, 2004, Liggett was in compliance
with all covenants under the credit facility; Liggetts
adjusted net worth was $61,578 and net working capital was
$35,473, as computed in accordance with the agreement.
100 Maple LLC, a company formed by Liggett in 1999 to purchase
its Mebane, North Carolina manufacturing plant, has a term loan
of $4,411 outstanding under Liggetts credit facility at
December 31, 2004. The remaining balance of the term loan
is payable in 17 monthly installments of $77 with a final
payment on June 1, 2006 of $3,095. Interest is charged at
the same rate as applicable to Liggetts credit facility,
and the outstanding balance of the term loan reduces the maximum
availability under the credit facility. Liggett has guaranteed
the term loan, and a first mortgage on the Mebane property and
manufacturing equipment collateralizes the term loan and
Liggetts credit facility.
Equipment Loans Liggett:
In March 2000, Liggett purchased equipment for $1,000 through
the issuance of a note, payable in 60 monthly installments
of $21 with an effective annual interest rate of 10.14%. In
April 2000, Liggett purchased equipment for $1,071 through the
issuance of notes, payable in 60 monthly installments of
$22 with an effective interest rate of 10.20%.
In October and December 2001, Liggett purchased equipment for
$3,204 and $3,200, respectively, through the issuance of notes
guaranteed by the Company, each payable in 60 monthly
installments of $53 with interest calculated at the prime rate.
In March 2002, Liggett purchased equipment for $3,023 through
the issuance of a note, payable in 30 monthly installments
of $62 and then 30 monthly installments of $51 with an
effective annual interest rate of 4.68%.
In May 2002, Liggett purchased equipment for $2,871 through the
issuance of a note, payable in 30 monthly installments of
$59 and then 30 monthly installments of $48 with an
effective annual interest rate of 4.64%.
In September 2002, Liggett purchased equipment for $1,573
through the issuance of a note guaranteed by the Company,
payable in 60 monthly installments of $26 plus interest
calculated at LIBOR plus 4.31%.
Notes Payable Vector Tobacco:
In June 2001, Vector Tobacco purchased for $8,400 an industrial
facility in Timberlake, North Carolina. Vector Tobacco financed
the purchase with an $8,200 loan. During December 2001, Vector
Tobacco borrowed an additional $1,159 from the same lender to
finance building improvements. These loans were repaid in July
2004 with a portion of proceeds from the sale of the Timberlake
property. (See Note 6.)
Notes for Medallion Acquisition Vector
Tobacco:
The purchase price for the acquisition of Medallion included
$60,000 in notes of Vector Tobacco, guaranteed by the Company
and Liggett. Of the notes, $25,000 have been repaid with the
final quarterly principal payment of $3,125 made on
March 31, 2004. The remaining $35,000 of notes bear
interest at 6.5% per year, payable semiannually, and mature
on April 1, 2007.
Notes Payable V.T. Aviation:
In February 2001, V.T. Aviation LLC, a subsidiary of Vector
Research Ltd., purchased an airplane for $15,500 and borrowed
$13,175 to fund the purchase. The loan, which is collateralized
by the airplane and a letter of credit from the Company for
$775, is guaranteed by Vector Research, VGR Holding and the
F-24
VECTOR GROUP LTD.
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(Dollars in Thousands, Except Per Share
Amounts) (Continued)
Company. The loan is payable in 119 monthly installments of
$125, including annual interest of 2.31% above the 30-day
commercial paper rate, with a final payment of $1,734, based on
current interest rates.
Notes Payable VGR Aviation:
In February 2002, V.T. Aviation purchased an airplane for $6,575
and borrowed $5,800 to fund the purchase. The loan is guaranteed
by the Company. The loan is payable in 119 monthly
installments of $40, including annual interest of 2.75% above
the 30-day average commercial paper rate, with a final payment
of $3,064 based on current interest rates. During the fourth
quarter of 2003, this airplane was transferred to the
Companys direct subsidiary, VGR Aviation LLC, which has
assumed the debt.
Note Payable New Valley:
In December 2002, New Valley financed a portion of its purchase
of two office buildings in Princeton, New Jersey with a mortgage
loan of $40,500 from HSBC Realty Credit Corporation (USA). The
loan had a term of four years, bore interest at a floating rate
of 2% above LIBOR, and was secured by a first mortgage on the
office buildings, as well as by an assignment of leases and
rents. Principal was amortized to the extent of $54 per
month during the term of the loan. The loan was prepayable
without penalty and was non-recourse against New Valley, except
for various specified environmental and related matters,
misapplications of tenant security deposits and insurance and
condemnation proceeds, and fraud or misrepresentation by New
Valley in connection with the indebtedness.
In February 2005, New Valley completed the sale of the office
buildings. The mortgage loan on the properties was retired at
closing with the proceeds of the sale.
Scheduled Maturities:
Scheduled maturities of long-term debt are as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year ending December 31:
|
|
|
|
|
2005
|
|
$ |
6,043 |
|
2006
|
|
|
46,075 |
|
2007
|
|
|
37,125 |
|
2008
|
|
|
134,044 |
|
2009
|
|
|
5,202 |
|
Thereafter
|
|
|
32,157 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$ |
260,646 |
|
|
|
|
|
F-25
VECTOR GROUP LTD.
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(Dollars in Thousands, Except Per Share
Amounts) (Continued)
Certain of the Companys subsidiaries lease facilities and
equipment used in operations under both month-to-month and
fixed-term agreements. The aggregate minimum rentals under
operating leases with noncancelable terms of one year or more
are as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year ending December 31:
|
|
|
|
|
2005
|
|
$ |
6,963 |
|
2006
|
|
|
5,750 |
|
2007
|
|
|
4,091 |
|
2008
|
|
|
2,922 |
|
2009
|
|
|
2,559 |
|
Thereafter
|
|
|
7,123 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$ |
29,408 |
|
|
|
|
|
The Companys rental expense for the years ended
December 31, 2004, 2003 and 2002 was $9,805, $9,704 and
$7,500, respectively.
|
|
10. |
EMPLOYEE BENEFIT PLANS |
Defined
Benefit and Postretirement Plans:
The Company sponsors several defined benefit pension plans
covering virtually all of its employees, who were employed by
Liggett on a full-time basis prior to 1994. The benefit plans
provide pension benefits for eligible employees based primarily
on their compensation and length of service. Contributions are
made to the pension plans in amounts necessary to meet the
minimum funding requirements of the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974. The plans assets and benefit
obligations are measured at September 30 of each year.
All defined benefit plans were frozen between 1993 and 1995.
In addition, the Company provides certain postretirement medical
and life insurance benefits to certain employees. Substantially
all of the Companys manufacturing employees as of
December 31, 2004 are eligible for postretirement medical
benefits if they reach retirement age while working for Liggett
or certain affiliates. Retirees are required to fund 100% of
participant medical premiums and, pursuant to union contracts,
Liggett reimburses approximately 700 hourly retirees, who
retired prior to 1991, for Medicare Part B premiums. In
addition, the Company provides life insurance benefits to
approximately 300 active employees and 525 retirees who reach
retirement age and are eligible to receive benefits under one of
the Companys defined benefit pension plans.
F-26
VECTOR GROUP LTD.
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(Dollars in Thousands, Except Per Share
Amounts) (Continued)
The following provides a reconciliation of benefit obligations,
plan assets and the funded status of the pension plans and other
postretirement benefits:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other Postretirement | |
|
|
Pension Benefits | |
|
Benefits | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
2004 | |
|
2003 | |
|
2004 | |
|
2003 | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
Change in benefit obligation:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Benefit obligation at January 1
|
|
$ |
(159,520 |
) |
|
$ |
(151,127 |
) |
|
$ |
(10,789 |
) |
|
$ |
(10,372 |
) |
|
Service cost
|
|
|
(4,641 |
) |
|
|
(3,573 |
) |
|
|
(30 |
) |
|
|
(79 |
) |
|
Interest cost
|
|
|
(8,959 |
) |
|
|
(9,559 |
) |
|
|
(626 |
) |
|
|
(676 |
) |
|
Benefits paid
|
|
|
14,194 |
|
|
|
14,462 |
|
|
|
614 |
|
|
|
599 |
|
|
Actuarial loss
|
|
|
(3,358 |
) |
|
|
(9,723 |
) |
|
|
(201 |
) |
|
|
(261 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Benefit obligation at December 31
|
|
$ |
(162,284 |
) |
|
$ |
(159,520 |
) |
|
$ |
(11,032 |
) |
|
$ |
(10,789 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Change in plan assets:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fair value of plan assets at January 1
|
|
$ |
150,663 |
|
|
$ |
146,512 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
Actual return on plan assets
|
|
|
15,560 |
|
|
|
18,260 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Contributions
|
|
|
438 |
|
|
|
353 |
|
|
|
614 |
|
|
|
599 |
|
|
Benefits paid
|
|
|
(14,194 |
) |
|
|
(14,462 |
) |
|
|
(614 |
) |
|
|
(599 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fair value of plan assets at December 31
|
|
$ |
152,467 |
|
|
$ |
150,663 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Liability less than projected benefit obligations at
December 31
|
|
$ |
(9,817 |
) |
|
$ |
(8,857 |
) |
|
$ |
(11,032 |
) |
|
$ |
(10,789 |
) |
|
Unrecognized actuarial (gains) losses
|
|
|
22,566 |
|
|
|
24,702 |
|
|
|
(488 |
) |
|
|
(777 |
) |
|
Contributions of SERP benefits
|
|
|
92 |
|
|
|
92 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net pension asset (liability) before additional minimum
liability and purchase accounting valuation adjustments
|
|
|
12,841 |
|
|
|
15,937 |
|
|
|
(11,520 |
) |
|
|
(11,566 |
) |
Additional minimum liability
|
|
|
(17,889 |
) |
|
|
(19,139 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Purchase accounting valuation adjustments relating to income
taxes
|
|
|
641 |
|
|
|
991 |
|
|
|
200 |
|
|
|
339 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Liability included in the December 31 balance sheet
|
|
$ |
(4,407 |
) |
|
$ |
(2,211 |
) |
|
$ |
(11,320 |
) |
|
$ |
(11,227 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other Postretirement | |
|
|
Pension Benefits | |
|
Benefits | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
2004 | |
|
2003 | |
|
2002 | |
|
2004 | |
|
2003 | |
|
2002 | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
Actuarial assumptions:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Discount rates benefit obligation
|
|
|
4.50%- 5.75% |
|
|
|
4.75%- 6.00% |
|
|
|
5.50%- 6.75% |
|
|
|
5.75% |
|
|
|
6.00% |
|
|
|
6.75% |
|
|
Discount rates service cost
|
|
|
4.25%- 6.05% |
|
|
|
5.50%- 6.75% |
|
|
|
6.00%- 7.25% |
|
|
|
6.00% |
|
|
|
6.75% |
|
|
|
7.25% |
|
|
Assumed rates of return on invested assets
|
|
|
8.50% |
|
|
|
8.50% |
|
|
|
9.25% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Salary increase assumptions
|
|
|
N/A |
|
|
|
N/A |
|
|
|
N/A |
|
|
|
3.00% |
|
|
|
3.00% |
|
|
|
3.00% |
|
F-27
VECTOR GROUP LTD.
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(Dollars in Thousands, Except Per Share
Amounts) (Continued)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other Postretirement | |
|
|
Pension Benefits | |
|
Benefits | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
2004 | |
|
2003 | |
|
2002 | |
|
2004 | |
|
2003 | |
|
2002 | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
Service cost benefits earned during the period
|
|
$ |
4,991 |
|
|
$ |
3,923 |
|
|
$ |
3,574 |
|
|
$ |
30 |
|
|
$ |
79 |
|
|
$ |
50 |
|
Interest cost on projected benefit obligation
|
|
|
8,959 |
|
|
|
9,559 |
|
|
|
10,062 |
|
|
|
626 |
|
|
|
676 |
|
|
|
621 |
|
Expected return on assets
|
|
|
(12,107 |
) |
|
|
(11,721 |
) |
|
|
(14,549 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Amortization of net (gain) loss
|
|
|
2,048 |
|
|
|
1,659 |
|
|
|
84 |
|
|
|
51 |
|
|
|
(129 |
) |
|
|
(281 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net (income) expense
|
|
$ |
3,891 |
|
|
$ |
3,420 |
|
|
$ |
(829 |
) |
|
$ |
707 |
|
|
$ |
626 |
|
|
$ |
390 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Plan assets are invested employing multiple investment
management firms. Managers within each asset class cover a range
of investment styles and focus primarily on issue selection as a
means to add value. Risk is controlled through a diversification
among asset classes, managers, styles and securities. Risk is
further controlled both at the manager and asset class level by
assigning excess return and tracking error targets. Investment
managers are monitored to evaluate performance against these
benchmark indices and targets.
Allowable investment types include equity, investment grade
fixed income, high yield fixed income, hedge funds and short
term investments. The equity fund is comprised of common stocks
and mutual funds of large, medium and small companies, which are
predominantly U.S. based. The investment grade fixed income
fund includes managed funds investing in fixed income securities
issued or guaranteed by the U.S. government, or by its
respective agencies, mortgage backed securities, including
collateralized mortgage obligations, and corporate debt
obligations. The high yield fixed income fund includes a fund
which invests in non-investment grade corporate debt securities.
The hedge funds invest in both equity, including common and
preferred stock, and debt obligations, including convertible
debentures, of private and public companies. The Company
generally utilizes its short term investments, including
interest-bearing cash, to pay benefits and to deploy in special
situations.
The current target asset allocation percentage is 48% equity
investments, 22% investment grade fixed income, 5% high yield
fixed income, 20% hedge funds and 5% short-term investments,
with a rebalancing range of approximately plus or minus 5%
around the target asset allocations.
Vectors defined benefit retirement plan allocations at
December 31, 2004 and 2003, by asset category, were as
follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Plan Assets at | |
|
|
December 31 | |
|
|
| |
|
|
2004 | |
|
2003 | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
Asset category:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Equity securities
|
|
|
50 |
% |
|
|
43 |
% |
Investment grade fixed income securities
|
|
|
20 |
% |
|
|
20 |
% |
High yield fixed income securities
|
|
|
3 |
% |
|
|
4 |
% |
Hedge funds
|
|
|
24 |
% |
|
|
24 |
% |
Short-term investments
|
|
|
3 |
% |
|
|
9 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
100 |
% |
|
|
100 |
% |
As of December 31, 2004, three of the Companys four
defined benefit plans experienced accumulated benefit
obligations in excess of plan assets, for which the projected
benefit obligation, accumulated benefit obligation and fair
value of plan assets were $95,610, $95,610 and $79,106,
respectively. As of December 31, 2003, three of the
Companys four defined benefit plans experienced
accumulated benefit obligations in excess of plan assets, for
which the projected benefit obligation, accumulated benefit
obligation and fair value of plan assets were $91,083, $91,083
and $78,173, respectively.
F-28
VECTOR GROUP LTD.
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(Dollars in Thousands, Except Per Share
Amounts) (Continued)
SFAS No. 87, Employers Accounting for
Pensions, permits the delayed recognition of pension fund
gains and losses in ratable periods over the average remaining
service period of active employees expected to receive benefits
under the plan. Gains and losses are only amortized to the
extent that they exceed 10% of the greater of Projected Benefit
Obligation and the fair value of assets. For the year ended
December 31, 2004, Liggett used a 10 year period for
its Hourly Plan and a six year period for its Salaried Plan to
amortize pension fund gains and losses on a straight line basis.
Such amounts are reflected in the pension expense calculation
beginning the year after the gains or losses occur. Declines in
the securities markets in 2001 and 2002 resulted in deferred
losses, and an additional minimum pension liability primarily
related to one of Liggetts defined benefit plans of
$17,590, $11,090 after tax, was included in other comprehensive
loss in 2002. The amortization of deferred losses will
negatively impact pension expense in the future.
Effective January 1, 2002, the Company adopted a
Supplemental Executive Retirement Plan (SERP). The
plan is a defined benefit plan pursuant to which the Company
will pay supplemental pension benefits to certain key employees
upon retirement. Under the SERP, the projected annual benefit
payable to a participant at his normal retirement date is a
predetermined amount set by the Companys board of
directors. Normal retirement date is defined as the January 1
following the attainment by the participant of the later of
age 60 or completion of eight years of participation
following January 1, 2002 for the Company or a subsidiary.
Benefits under the SERP are generally payable in the form of a
joint and survivor annuity (in the case of a married
participant) or a single life annuity (in the case of an
unmarried participant), with either such form of distribution
representing the actuarial equivalent of the benefits due the
participant. A participant may also request that his benefits be
paid in a lump sum, but the Company may approve or disapprove
such request in its discretion. The total cost of the plan for
the years ended December 31, 2004, 2003 and 2002 was
$4,641, $3,573 and $3,224, respectively.
For 2004 measurement purposes, annual increases in Medicare
Part B trends were assumed to equal rates between 2.43% and
17.27% between 2005 and 2014 and 5.0% after 2014. For 2003
measurement purposes, annual increases in Medicare Part B
trends were assumed to equal rates between 4.1% and 6.04%
between 2004 and 2013 and 5.0% after 2013.
Assumed health care cost trend rates have a significant effect
on the amounts reported for the health care plans. A 1% change
in assumed in health care cost trend rates would have the
following effects:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1% Increase | |
|
1% Decrease | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
Effect on total of service and interest cost component
|
|
$ |
18 |
|
|
$ |
(16 |
) |
Effect on benefit obligation
|
|
$ |
314 |
|
|
$ |
(285 |
) |
To comply with ERISAs minimum funding requirements, the
Company does not currently anticipate that it will be required
to make any funding to the pension plans for the pension plan
year beginning on January 1, 2005 and ending on
December 31, 2005. Any additional funding obligation that
the Company may have for subsequent years is contingent on
several factors and is not reasonably estimable at this time.
Estimated future pension benefits payments are as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
2005
|
|
$ |
13,972 |
|
2006
|
|
|
13,597 |
|
2007
|
|
|
13,286 |
|
2008
|
|
|
12,953 |
|
2009
|
|
|
12,606 |
|
2010-2014
|
|
|
76,864 |
|
Profit Sharing and Other Plans:
The Company maintains 401(k) plans for substantially all
U.S. employees which allow eligible employees to invest a
percentage of their pre-tax compensation. The Company
contributed to the 401(k)
F-29
VECTOR GROUP LTD.
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(Dollars in Thousands, Except Per Share
Amounts) (Continued)
plans and expensed $1,343, $1,437 and $1,458 for the years ended
December 31, 2004, 2003 and 2002, respectively.
The Company files a consolidated U.S. income tax return
that includes its more than 80%-owned U.S. subsidiaries.
The consolidated U.S. income tax return does not include
the activities of New Valley. New Valley files a consolidated
U.S. income tax return that includes its more than
80%-owned U.S. subsidiaries. The amounts provided for
income taxes are as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31, | |
|
|
| |
|
|
2004 | |
|
2003 | |
|
2002 | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
Current:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
U.S. Federal
|
|
$ |
4,252 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
(7,774 |
) |
|
State
|
|
|
3,018 |
|
|
|
3,888 |
|
|
|
2,296 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
7,270 |
|
|
$ |
3,888 |
|
|
$ |
(5,478 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Deferred:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
U.S. Federal
|
|
$ |
(14,667 |
) |
|
$ |
(4,143 |
) |
|
$ |
(2,674 |
) |
|
State
|
|
|
437 |
|
|
|
(411 |
) |
|
|
1,759 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(14,230 |
) |
|
|
(4,554 |
) |
|
|
(915 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total benefit
|
|
$ |
(6,960 |
) |
|
$ |
(666 |
) |
|
$ |
(6,393 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The tax effect of temporary differences which give rise to a
significant portion of deferred tax assets and liabilities are
as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31, 2004 | |
|
December 31, 2003 | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
Deferred Tax | |
|
Deferred Tax | |
|
Deferred Tax | |
|
Deferred Tax | |
|
|
Assets | |
|
Liabilities | |
|
Assets | |
|
Liabilities | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
Excess of tax basis over book basis-non- consolidated
subsidiaries
|
|
$ |
14,634 |
|
|
$ |
22,224 |
|
|
$ |
9,406 |
|
|
$ |
16,754 |
|
Deferral on Philip Morris brand transaction
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
103,100 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
103,100 |
|
Employee benefit accruals
|
|
|
16,584 |
|
|
|
2,787 |
|
|
|
12,549 |
|
|
|
1,743 |
|
Book/tax differences on fixed and intangible assets
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
18,641 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
18,329 |
|
Other
|
|
|
3,729 |
|
|
|
3,707 |
|
|
|
16,193 |
|
|
|
4,001 |
|
U.S. tax loss and contribution carryforwards
Vector
|
|
|
7,155 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6,170 |
|
|
|
|
|
U.S. tax credit carryforwards Vector
|
|
|
3,257 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3,178 |
|
|
|
|
|
U.S. tax loss carryforwards New Valley
|
|
|
65,073 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
U.S. tax and capital loss carryforwards New
Valley
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
66,894 |
|
|
|
|
|
U.S. tax credit carryforwards New Valley
|
|
|
13,512 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
13,512 |
|
|
|
|
|
Valuation allowance
|
|
|
(83,130 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(95,374 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
40,814 |
|
|
$ |
150,459 |
|
|
$ |
32,528 |
|
|
$ |
143,927 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
F-30
VECTOR GROUP LTD.
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(Dollars in Thousands, Except Per Share
Amounts) (Continued)
The Company provides a valuation allowance against deferred tax
assets if, based on the weight of available evidence, it is more
likely than not that some or all of the deferred tax assets will
not be realized. The Company has established a valuation
allowance against deferred tax assets of $83,130 at
December 31, 2004, which relates to the deferred tax assets
of New Valley.
The valuation allowance of $83,130 at December 31, 2004
consisted primarily of a reserve against New Valleys net
operating loss and tax credit carryforwards of $160,500 and
$13,600, respectively. In 2004, New Valley recognized $9,000 of
deferred tax assets based on its managements belief that
it is more likely than not that such deferred tax assets will be
realized based upon a projection of taxable income for 2005. New
Valleys management will continue to monitor New
Valleys unrealized deferred tax assets in the future and
determine whether any additional adjustments to the valuation
allowance are warranted.
As of December 31, 2004, the Company and its more than
80%-owned subsidiaries had U.S. net operating loss
carryforwards of approximately $17,000 and charitable
contribution carryforwards of approximately $3,000 which expire
at various dates from 2007 through 2024. The Company and its
more than 80%-owned subsidiaries also had approximately $2,143
of alternative minimum tax credit carryforwards, which may be
carried forward indefinitely under current U.S. tax law,
and $1,113 of general business credit carryforwards, which
expire at various dates from 2021 through 2023.
As of December 31, 2004, New Valley and its consolidated
group had U.S. net operating loss carryforwards of
approximately $160,500 for tax purposes, which expire at various
dates from 2006 through 2024. New Valley also has approximately
$13,500 of alternative minimum tax credit carryforwards, which
may be carried forward indefinitely under current U.S. tax
law.
Differences between the amounts provided for income taxes and
amounts computed at the federal statutory tax rate are
summarized as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31, | |
|
|
| |
|
|
2004 | |
|
2003 | |
|
2002 | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
Loss from continuing operations before income taxes
|
|
$ |
(2,921 |
) |
|
$ |
(16,798 |
) |
|
$ |
(38,212 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Federal income tax benefit at statutory rate
|
|
|
(1,022 |
) |
|
|
(5,879 |
) |
|
|
(13,374 |
) |
Increases (decreases) resulting from:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
State income taxes, net of federal income tax benefits
|
|
|
2,256 |
|
|
|
2,265 |
|
|
|
2,628 |
|
|
Non-deductible expenses
|
|
|
4,320 |
|
|
|
3,565 |
|
|
|
4,397 |
|
|
Equity and other adjustments
|
|
|
(270 |
) |
|
|
1,314 |
|
|
|
6,068 |
|
|
Changes in valuation allowance, net of equity and tax audit
adjustments
|
|
|
(12,244 |
) |
|
|
(1,931 |
) |
|
|
(6,112 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Benefit for income tax
|
|
$ |
(6,960 |
) |
|
$ |
(666 |
) |
|
$ |
(6,393 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income taxes associated with discontinued operations have been
shown net of the utilization of the net operating loss
carryforwards and the changes in other deferred tax assets.
The consolidated balance sheets of the Company include deferred
income tax assets and liabilities, which represent temporary
differences in the application of accounting rules established
by generally accepted accounting principles and income tax laws.
As of December 31, 2004, the Companys deferred income
tax liabilities exceeded its deferred income tax assets by
$109,645. The largest component of the Companys deferred
tax liabilities exists because of differences that resulted from
a 1998 and 1999 transaction with Philip Morris Incorporated
where a subsidiary of Liggett contributed three of its premium
cigarette brands to Trademarks LLC, a newly-formed limited
liability company. In such transaction, Philip Morris acquired
an option to purchase the remaining interest in Trademarks for a
90-day period commencing in December 2008, and the Company has
an option to require Philip Morris to purchase the remaining
interest for a 90-day period commencing in March 2010. (See
Note 19.)
F-31
VECTOR GROUP LTD.
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(Dollars in Thousands, Except Per Share
Amounts) (Continued)
In connection with the transaction, the Company recognized in
1999 a pre-tax gain of $294,078 in its consolidated financial
statements and established a deferred tax liability of $103,100
relating to the gain. Upon exercise of the options during the
90-day periods commencing in December 2008 or in March 2010, the
Company will be required to pay tax in the amount of the
deferred tax liability, which will be offset by the benefit of
any deferred tax assets, including any net operating losses,
available to the Company at that time. In connection with an
examination of the Companys 1998 and 1999 federal income
tax returns, the Internal Revenue Service issued to the Company
in September 2003 a notice of proposed adjustment. The notice
asserts that, for tax reporting purposes, the entire gain should
have been recognized in 1998 and in 1999 in the additional
amounts of $150,000 and $129,900, respectively, rather than upon
the exercise of the options during the 90-day periods commencing
in December 2008 or in March 2010. If the Internal Revenue
Service were to ultimately prevail with the proposed adjustment,
it would result in the potential acceleration of tax payments of
approximately $121,000, including interest, net of tax benefits,
through December 31, 2004. These amounts have been
previously recognized in the Companys consolidated
financial statements as tax liabilities. As of December 31,
2004, the Company believes amounts potentially due have been
fully provided for in its consolidated statements of operations.
The Company believes the positions reflected on its income tax
returns are correct and intends to vigorously oppose any
proposed adjustments to its returns. The Company has filed a
protest with the Appeals Division of the Internal Revenue
Service. No payment is due with respect to these matters during
the appeal process. Interest currently is accruing on the
disputed amounts at a rate of 6%, with the rate adjusted
quarterly based on rates published by the U.S. Treasury
Department. If taxing authorities were to ultimately prevail in
their assertion that the Company incurred a tax obligation prior
to the exercise dates of these options and it was required to
make such tax payments prior to 2009 or 2010, and if any
necessary financing were not available to the Company, its
liquidity could be adversely affected.
During 2004, 1,107,878 options, exercisable at prices ranging
from $3.73 to $14.70 per share, were exercised for $3,165
in cash and the delivery to the Company of 348,623 shares
of common stock with a fair market value of $5,346 or
$15.33 per share at the date of exercise.
On June 1, 2004, the Company granted 10,500 restricted
shares of the Companys common stock to each of its four
outside directors which will vest over a period of three years.
The Company will recognize $644 of expense over the vesting
period.
During 2003, the remaining 140,381 warrants to purchase
Vectors common stock at $3.61 per share issued in
1998 were exercised.
During 2003, the remaining 435,990 options to purchase
Vectors common stock at $4.47 per share granted in
1998 to a law firm which represents the Company and Liggett were
exercised. The exercise price was paid by the surrender of
248,489 options.
During 2003, employees of the Company exercised 221,793 options
to purchase Vectors common stock at prices ranging from
$3.73 to $12.10 per share.
In April 2004, the Company amended its 1999 Long-Term Incentive
Plan (the 1999 Plan). The 1999 Plan, as amended,
authorizes the granting of up to 8,925,000 shares of common
stock through awards of stock options (which may include
incentive stock options and/or nonqualified stock options),
stock appreciation rights and shares of restricted Company
common stock. The amended 1999 Plan was approved by the
Companys stockholders in May 2004. All officers, employees
and consultants of the Company and its subsidiaries are eligible
to receive awards under the 1999 Plan.
F-32
VECTOR GROUP LTD.
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(Dollars in Thousands, Except Per Share
Amounts) (Continued)
In October 1998, stockholders of the Company approved the
adoption of the 1998 Long-Term Incentive Plan (the 1998
Plan) which authorizes the granting of up to
6,700,478 shares of common stock through awards of stock
options (which may include incentive stock options and/or
nonqualified stock options), stock appreciation rights and
shares of restricted Company common stock. All officers,
employees and consultants of the Company and its subsidiaries
are eligible to receive awards under the 1998 Plan.
In January 2001, the Company granted non-qualified stock options
to the Chairman and to the President of the Company pursuant to
the Companys 1999 Long-Term Incentive Plan. Under the
options, the option holders have the right to purchase an
aggregate of 911,628 shares of common stock at an exercise
price of $15.72 per share (the fair market value of a share
of common stock on the date of grant). The options have a
ten-year term and became exercisable on November 4, 2003.
Common stock dividend equivalents are paid currently with
respect to each share underlying the unexercised portion of the
options. In 2004, 2003 and 2002, the Company recorded charges to
income of $5,798, $5,520 and $6,839, respectively, for the
dividend equivalent rights on these options and the November
1999, December 1996 and January 1995 option grants discussed
below.
During the year ended December 31, 2001, other employees of
the Company or its subsidiaries were awarded a total of
1,114,126 non-qualified options to purchase shares of common
stock at prices ranging from $14.70 to $37.61, generally at the
fair market value on the dates of grant under the Companys
1998 and 1999 Long-Term Incentive Plan. The Company recognized
compensation expense of $1,031 over the vesting period.
Non-qualified options for additional 200,025, 15,750 and
57,881 shares of common stock were issued under the 1998
Plan during 2004, 2003 and 2002, respectively. The exercise
prices of the options granted were $15.42 in 2004, $12.02 in
2003 and $10.91 to $24.90 in 2002, the fair market value on the
dates of grant.
In November 1999, the Company granted non-qualified stock
options to six executive officers of the Company or its
subsidiaries, including the Chairman and a consultant to the
Company who now serves as President and a director of the
Company (the Consultant), pursuant to the 1999 Plan.
Under the options, the option holders have the right to purchase
an aggregate of 2,820,581 shares of common stock at an
exercise price of $12.10 per share (the fair market value
of a share of common stock on the date of grant). The options
have a ten-year term and became exercisable on November 4,
2003. Common stock dividend equivalents are paid currently with
respect to each share underlying the unexercised portion of the
options.
In July 1998, the Company granted a non-qualified stock option
to each of the Chairman and the Consultant, pursuant to the 1998
Plan. Under the options, the Chairman and the Consultant have
the right to purchase 3,350,238 shares and
670,045 shares (exercised in 2004), respectively, of common
stock at an exercise price of $7.29 per share (the fair
market value of a share of common stock on the date of grant).
The options have a ten-year term and became exercisable as to
one-fourth of the shares on each of the first four anniversaries
of the date of grant.
In November 1999, the Company granted non-qualified stock
options to purchase 1,245,578 shares of common stock
to key employees of Liggett under the 1998 Plan. Under the
options, the Liggett option holders had the right to purchase
shares at prices ranging from $12.10 to $14.10 per share.
The options became fully exercisable on December 31, 2003,
assuming the continued employment of the option holder. The
Company recognized compensation expense of $1,717 over the
vesting period.
F-33
VECTOR GROUP LTD.
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(Dollars in Thousands, Except Per Share
Amounts) (Continued)
A summary of employee stock option transactions follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weighted- | |
|
|
Number of | |
|
Average | |
|
|
Shares | |
|
Exercise Price | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
Outstanding on December 31, 2001
|
|
|
12,337,707 |
|
|
$ |
5.82 |
|
|
Granted
|
|
|
60,775 |
|
|
$ |
15.81 |
|
|
Exercised
|
|
|
(1,774,025 |
) |
|
$ |
1.52 |
|
|
Cancelled
|
|
|
(136,818 |
) |
|
$ |
12.83 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Outstanding on December 31, 2002
|
|
|
10,487,639 |
|
|
$ |
11.70 |
|
|
Granted
|
|
|
16,538 |
|
|
$ |
12.02 |
|
|
Exercised
|
|
|
(221,794 |
) |
|
$ |
5.60 |
|
|
Cancelled
|
|
|
(161,193 |
) |
|
$ |
16.76 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Outstanding on December 31, 2003
|
|
|
10,121,190 |
|
|
$ |
11.75 |
|
|
Granted
|
|
|
200,007 |
|
|
$ |
11.76 |
|
|
Exercised
|
|
|
(1,107,878 |
) |
|
$ |
7.68 |
|
|
Cancelled
|
|
|
(363,355 |
) |
|
$ |
19.49 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Outstanding on December 31, 2004
|
|
|
8,849,964 |
|
|
$ |
11.98 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Options exercisable at:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31, 2002
|
|
|
4,428,974 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31, 2003
|
|
|
8,694,607 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31, 2004
|
|
|
8,473,807 |
|
|
|
|
|
Additional information relating to options outstanding at
December 31, 2004 follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Options Outstanding | |
|
Options Exercisable | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
Weighted-Average | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Outstanding | |
|
Remaining | |
|
|
|
Exercisable | |
|
|
Range of |
|
as of | |
|
Contractual Life | |
|
Weighted-Average | |
|
as of | |
|
Weighted-Average | |
Exercise Prices |
|
12/31/2004 | |
|
(Years) | |
|
Exercise Price | |
|
12/31/2004 | |
|
Exercise Price | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
$ 7.28
|
|
|
3,350,238 |
|
|
|
3.6 |
|
|
$ |
7.2800 |
|
|
|
3,350,238 |
|
|
$ |
7.2800 |
|
$ 7.5201 $11.2800
|
|
|
275,047 |
|
|
|
6.1 |
|
|
$ |
11.1284 |
|
|
|
249,001 |
|
|
$ |
11.1513 |
|
$11.2801 $15.0400
|
|
|
3,304,784 |
|
|
|
4.8 |
|
|
$ |
12.1309 |
|
|
|
3,282,451 |
|
|
$ |
12.1182 |
|
$15.0401 $18.8000
|
|
|
1,375,501 |
|
|
|
6.1 |
|
|
$ |
15.9196 |
|
|
|
1,243,169 |
|
|
$ |
15.8524 |
|
$18.8001 $22.5600
|
|
|
578 |
|
|
|
0.2 |
|
|
$ |
21.8200 |
|
|
|
578 |
|
|
$ |
21.8200 |
|
$22.5601 $26.3200
|
|
|
93,036 |
|
|
|
2.3 |
|
|
$ |
24.4991 |
|
|
|
79,580 |
|
|
$ |
24.5650 |
|
$26.3201 $30.0800
|
|
|
37,973 |
|
|
|
6.2 |
|
|
$ |
27.2308 |
|
|
|
23,845 |
|
|
$ |
27.2387 |
|
$30.0801 $33.8400
|
|
|
339,470 |
|
|
|
6.7 |
|
|
$ |
32.9661 |
|
|
|
206,669 |
|
|
$ |
32.9931 |
|
$33.8401 $37.6000
|
|
|
73,337 |
|
|
|
6.4 |
|
|
$ |
34.6002 |
|
|
|
38,276 |
|
|
$ |
34.7050 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
8,849,964 |
|
|
|
4.7 |
|
|
$ |
20.8417 |
|
|
|
8,473,807 |
|
|
$ |
20.8600 |
|
F-34
VECTOR GROUP LTD.
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(Dollars in Thousands, Except Per Share
Amounts) (Continued)
The fair value of option grants to employees is estimated on the
date of grant using the Black-Scholes option pricing model with
the following assumptions for options granted:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2004 | |
|
2003 | |
|
2002 | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
Risk-free interest rate
|
|
|
4.54% |
|
|
|
4.0% |
|
|
|
3.9% 4.7% |
|
Expected volatility
|
|
|
18.43% |
|
|
|
53.4% |
|
|
|
45.8% 53.5% |
|
Dividend yield
|
|
|
9.88% |
|
|
|
12.7% |
|
|
|
5.7% 13.3% |
|
Expected holding period
|
|
|
10 years |
|
|
|
10 years |
|
|
|
10 years |
|
Weighted average fair value
|
|
|
$0.45 |
|
|
|
$1.54 |
|
|
|
$1.36 $8.63 |
|
In December 1996, the Company granted the Consultant
non-qualified stock options to
purchase 1,340,095 shares of the Companys common
stock at an exercise price of $0.75 per share, which
options were exercised in December 2002. The Company recognized
compensation expense of $2,242 in 2002. Under the agreement,
common stock dividend equivalents were paid on each unexercised
option.
In January 1995, the Company granted the Consultant
non-qualified stock options, of which the remaining options to
purchase 335,022 shares at $1.49 per share were
exercised in December 2002. The grant provided for dividend
equivalent rights on all the shares underlying the unexercised
options.
|
|
14. |
SUPPLEMENTAL CASH FLOW INFORMATION |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31, | |
|
|
| |
|
|
2004 | |
|
2003 | |
|
2002 | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
I. Cash paid during the period for:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interest
|
|
$ |
22,506 |
|
|
$ |
23,970 |
|
|
$ |
24,206 |
|
|
Income taxes
|
|
|
2,393 |
|
|
|
2,016 |
|
|
|
3,148 |
|
II. Non-cash investing and financing activities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Issuance of stock dividend
|
|
|
29,668 |
|
|
|
28,270 |
|
|
|
22,279 |
|
|
Conversion of debt
|
|
|
8 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Smoking-Related Litigation:
Overview. Since 1954, Liggett and other United States
cigarette manufacturers have been named as defendants in
numerous direct and third-party actions predicated on the theory
that cigarette manufacturers should be liable for damages
alleged to have been caused by cigarette smoking or by exposure
to secondary smoke from cigarettes. These cases are reported
here as though having been commenced against Liggett (without
regard to whether such cases were actually commenced against
Brooke Group Holding Inc., the Companys predecessor and a
wholly-owned subsidiary of VGR Holding, or Liggett). There has
been a noteworthy increase in the number of cases commenced
against Liggett and the other cigarette manufacturers in recent
years. The cases generally fall into the following categories:
(i) smoking and health cases alleging injury brought on
behalf of individual plaintiffs (Individual
Actions); (ii) smoking and health cases alleging
injury and purporting to be brought on behalf of a class of
individual plaintiffs (Class Actions);
(iii) health care cost recovery actions brought by various
foreign and domestic governmental entities (Governmental
Actions); and (iv) health care cost recovery actions
brought by third-party payors including insurance companies,
union health and welfare trust funds, asbestos manufacturers and
others (Third-Party Payor Actions). As new cases are
commenced, defense costs and the risks attendant to the inherent
unpredictability of litigation continue to increase. The future
financial impact of the risks and expenses of litigation and the
effects of the tobacco litigation settlements discussed below
are not quantifiable at this time. For the year
F-35
VECTOR GROUP LTD.
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(Dollars in Thousands, Except Per Share
Amounts) (Continued)
ended December 31, 2004, Liggett incurred legal fees and
other litigation costs totaling approximately $5,110 compared to
$6,122 for 2003 and $4,931 for 2002.
Individual Actions. As of December 31, 2004, there
were approximately 330 cases pending against Liggett, and in
most cases the other tobacco companies, where one or more
individual plaintiffs allege injury resulting from cigarette
smoking, addiction to cigarette smoking or exposure to secondary
smoke and seek compensatory and, in some cases, punitive
damages. Of these, 111 were pending in Maryland, 95 in Florida,
43 in Mississippi, 19 in New York and 15 in Puerto Rico. The
balance of the individual cases were pending in 15 states.
In one of these cases, an action against cigarette manufacturers
involving approximately 1,000 named individual plaintiffs has
been consolidated before a single West Virginia state court.
Liggett is a defendant in most of the cases pending in West
Virginia. In January 2002, the court severed Liggett from the
trial of the consolidated action.
There are six individual cases pending where Liggett is the only
named defendant. In April 2004, in one of these cases,
Beverly Davis v. Liggett Group Inc., a jury in a
Florida state court action awarded compensatory damages of $540
against Liggett. In addition, plaintiffs counsel was
awarded legal fees of $752. Liggett has appealed the verdict. In
February 2005, in another of these cases, Angel
Martinez v. Liggett Group Inc., a state court jury in
Florida returned a verdict in favor of Liggett. The
plaintiffs post-trial motion seeking a new trial is
pending.
The plaintiffs allegations of liability in those cases in
which individuals seek recovery for injuries allegedly caused by
cigarette smoking are based on various theories of recovery,
including negligence, gross negligence, breach of special duty,
strict liability, fraud, misrepresentation, design defect,
failure to warn, breach of express and implied warranties,
conspiracy, aiding and abetting, concert of action, unjust
enrichment, common law public nuisance, property damage,
invasion of privacy, mental anguish, emotional distress,
disability, shock, indemnity and violations of deceptive trade
practice laws, the Federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act (RICO), state RICO statutes and
antitrust statutes. In many of these cases, in addition to
compensatory damages, plaintiffs also seek other forms of relief
including treble/multiple damages, medical monitoring,
disgorgement of profits and punitive damages. Defenses raised by
defendants in these cases include lack of proximate cause,
assumption of the risk, comparative fault and/or contributory
negligence, lack of design defect, statute of limitations,
equitable defenses such as unclean hands and lack of
benefit, failure to state a claim and federal preemption.
Jury awards in various states have been entered against other
cigarette manufacturers. The awards in these individual actions
are for both compensatory and punitive damages and represent a
material amount of damages. Liggett is not a party to these
actions. The following is a brief description of various of
these matters:
|
|
|
|
|
In February, 1999, in Henley v. Philip Morris, a
California state court jury awarded $1,500 in compensatory
damages and $50,000 in punitive damages. The trial court reduced
the punitive damages award to $25,000. In September 2003, the
California Court of Appeals reduced the punitive damages award
to $9,000 based on the United States Supreme Courts 2003
opinion in State Farm, limiting punitive damages. In
September 2004, the California Supreme Court upheld the $9,000
punitive damages award. The defendant has appealed. |
|
|
|
In March 1999, an Oregon state court jury found in favor of the
plaintiff in Williams-Branch v. Philip Morris. The
jury awarded $800 in compensatory damages and $79,500 in
punitive damages. The trial court reduced the punitive damages
award to $32,000. In June 2002, the Oregon Court of Appeals
reinstated the $79,500 punitive damages award. In October 2003,
the United States Supreme Court set aside the Oregon appellate
courts ruling and directed the Oregon court to reconsider
the case in light of the State Farm decision. In June
2004, the Oregon appellate court reinstated the original jury
verdict. The Oregon Supreme Court has agreed to review the case. |
F-36
VECTOR GROUP LTD.
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(Dollars in Thousands, Except Per Share
Amounts) (Continued)
|
|
|
|
|
In March 2000, a California state court jury found in favor of
the plaintiff in Whiteley v. Raybestos-Manhattan, Inc.,
et al. The jury awarded the plaintiff $1,720 in
compensatory damages and $20,000 in punitive damages. In April
2004, the California Court of Appeals reversed the judgment and
remanded the case for a new trial. |
|
|
|
In 2001, as a result of a Florida Supreme Court decision
upholding the award, in Carter v. Brown and Williamson
Tobacco Corp., the defendant paid $1,100 in compensatory
damages and interest to a former smoker and his spouse for
injuries they allegedly incurred as a result of smoking. |
|
|
|
In June 2001, a California state court jury found in favor of
the plaintiff in Boeken v. Philip Morris and awarded
$5,500 in compensatory damages and $3,000,000 in punitive
damages. In August 2001, the trial court reduced the punitive
damages award to $100,000. In September 2004, the California
Court of Appeals affirmed the compensatory damages award, but
reduced the punitive damages award to $50,000. In October 2004,
the California Court of Appeals granted the parties
petitions for rehearing and vacated its decision. |
|
|
|
In December 2001, in Kenyon v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.,
a Florida state court jury awarded the plaintiff $165 in
compensatory damages, but no punitive damages. In May 2003, the
Florida Court of Appeals affirmed per curiam (that is, without
an opinion) the trial courts final judgment in favor of
the plaintiffs. The defendant paid the amount of the judgment
plus accrued interest ($196) after exhausting all appeals. |
|
|
|
In February 2002, in Burton v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.,
et al, a federal district court jury in Kansas awarded
the plaintiff $198 in compensatory damages, and determined that
the plaintiff was entitled to punitive damages. In June 2002,
the trial court awarded the plaintiff $15,000 in punitive
damages. In February 2005, the United States Court of Appeals
for the Tenth Circuit overturned the punitive damages award,
while upholding the compensatory damages award. |
|
|
|
In March 2002, an Oregon state court jury found in favor of the
plaintiff in Schwarz v. Philip Morris and awarded
$169 in compensatory damages and $150,000 in punitive damages.
In May 2002, the trial court reduced the punitive damages award
to $100,000. The parties have appealed. |
|
|
|
In October 2002, a California state court jury found in favor of
the plaintiff in Bullock v. Philip Morris and
awarded $850 in compensatory damages and $28,000,000 in punitive
damages. In December 2002, the trial court reduced the punitive
damages award to $28,000. The parties have appealed. |
|
|
|
In April 2003, in Eastman v. Brown & Williamson
Tobacco Corp., et al, a Florida state court jury
awarded $6,540 in compensatory damages. In May 2004, the Florida
Court of Appeals affirmed the verdict in a per curiam opinion.
The defendants motion for rehearing was denied, and the
judgment was paid in October 2004. |
|
|
|
In May 2003, in Boerner v. Brown & Williamson
Tobacco Corp., a federal district court jury in Arkansas
awarded $4,000 in compensatory damages and $15,000 in punitive
damages. In January 2005, the United States Court of Appeals for
the Eighth Circuit affirmed the compensatory damages award, but
reduced the punitive damages award to $5,000. The judgment was
paid in February 2005. |
|
|
|
In November 2003, in Thompson v. Brown & Williamson
Tobacco Corp., et al., a Missouri state court jury
awarded $2,100 in compensatory damages. The defendants have
appealed. |
|
|
|
In December 2003, in Frankson v. Brown & Williamson
Tobacco Corp., et al., a New York state court jury
awarded $350 in compensatory damages. In January 2004, the jury
awarded $20,000 in punitive damages. The deceased smoker was
found to be 50% at fault. In June 2004, the court increased the
compensatory damages to $500 and decreased the punitive damages
to $5,000. The defendants have appealed. |
F-37
VECTOR GROUP LTD.
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(Dollars in Thousands, Except Per Share
Amounts) (Continued)
|
|
|
|
|
In October 2004, in Arnitz v. Philip Morris, a Florida
state court jury awarded $600 in damages but found that the
plaintiff was 60% at fault, thereby reducing the verdict against
Philip Morris to $240. Philip Morris intends to appeal. |
|
|
|
In February 2005, in Smith v. Brown & Williamson
Tobacco Corp., a Missouri state court jury awarded $2,000 in
compensatory damages and $20,000 in punitive damages. The
defendants intend to appeal. |
One of the states where several individual cases are pending
against Liggett is Mississippi. In 2003, the Mississippi Supreme
Court ruled that the Mississippi Product Liability Act
precludes all tobacco cases that are based on product
liability. Based on this ruling, Liggett is seeking, or
intends to seek, dismissal of each of the approximately 43 cases
pending against it in Mississippi.
Class Actions. As December 31, 2004, there were
approximately 18 actions pending, for which either a class has
been certified or plaintiffs are seeking class certification,
where Liggett, among others, was a named defendant. Many of
these actions purport to constitute statewide class actions and
were filed after May 1996 when the Fifth Circuit Court of
Appeals, in the Castano case, reversed a Federal district
courts certification of a purported nationwide class
action on behalf of persons who were allegedly
addicted to tobacco products.
The extent of the impact of the Castano decision on
smoking-related class action litigation is still uncertain. The
Castano decision has had a limited effect with respect to
courts decisions regarding narrower smoking-related
classes or class actions brought in state rather than federal
court. For example, since the Fifth Circuits ruling, a
court in Louisiana (Liggett is not a defendant in this
proceeding) has certified an addiction-as-injury
class action that covered only citizens in the state. In May
2004, the jury returned a verdict in the amount of $591,000,
plus prejudgment interest, on the class claim for a
smoking cessation program. The case is on appeal. Two other
class actions, Broin, et al., v. Philip Morris
Companies Inc., et al., and Engle,
et al., v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, et al.,
were certified in state court in Florida prior to the Fifth
Circuits decision. In April 2001, Brown,
et al., v. The American Tobacco Company, Inc.,
et al., was certified as a class action in California.
The Brown class was subsequently decertified by the court
in March 2005.
In May 1994, the Engle case was filed against Liggett and
others in the Circuit Court, Eleventh Judicial Circuit,
Miami-Dade County, Florida. The class consists of all Florida
residents and citizens, and their survivors, who have suffered,
presently suffer or have died from diseases and medical
conditions caused by their addiction to cigarettes that contain
nicotine. Phase I of the trial commenced in July 1998 and
in July 1999, the jury returned the Phase I verdict. The
Phase I verdict concerned certain issues determined by the
trial court to be common to the causes of action of
the plaintiff class. Among other things, the jury found that:
smoking cigarettes causes 20 diseases or medical conditions,
cigarettes are addictive or dependence producing, defective and
unreasonably dangerous, defendants made materially false
statements with the intention of misleading smokers, defendants
concealed or omitted material information concerning the health
effects and/or the addictive nature of smoking cigarettes and
agreed to misrepresent and conceal the health effects and/or the
addictive nature of smoking cigarettes, and defendants were
negligent and engaged in extreme and outrageous conduct or acted
with reckless disregard with the intent to inflict emotional
distress. The jury also found that defendants conduct
rose to a level that would permit a potential award or
entitlement to punitive damages. The court decided that
Phase II of the trial, which commenced November 1999, would
be a causation and damages trial for three of the class
representatives and a punitive damages trial on a class-wide
basis, before the same jury that returned the verdict in
Phase I. Phase III of the trial was to be conducted
before separate juries to address absent class members
claims, including issues of specific causation and other
individual issues regarding entitlement to compensatory damages.
In April 2000, the jury awarded compensatory damages of $12,704
to the three plaintiffs, to be reduced in proportion to the
respective plaintiffs fault. The jury also decided that
the claim of one of the plaintiffs, who was awarded compensatory
damages of $5,831, was not timely filed. In July 2000, the jury
awarded approximately $145,000,000 in the
F-38
VECTOR GROUP LTD.
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(Dollars in Thousands, Except Per Share
Amounts) (Continued)
punitive damages portion of Phase II against all defendants
including $790,000 against Liggett. The court entered a final
order of judgment against the defendants in November 2000. The
courts final judgment, which provided for interest at the
rate of 10% per year on the jurys awards, also denied
various post-trial motions, including a motion for new trial and
a motion seeking reduction of the punitive damages award.
Liggett appealed the courts order.
In May 2003, Floridas Third District Court of Appeals
decertified the Engle class and set aside the jurys
decision in the case against Liggett and the other cigarette
makers, including the $145,000,000 punitive damages award. The
intermediate appellate court ruled that there were multiple
legal bases why the class action trial, including the punitive
damages award, could not be sustained. The court found that the
class failed to meet the legal requirements for class
certification and that class members needed to pursue their
claims on an individualized basis. The court also ruled that the
trial plan violated Florida law and the appellate courts
1996 certification decision, and was unconstitutional. The court
further found that the proceedings were irretrievably tainted by
class counsels misconduct and that the punitive damages
award was bankrupting under Florida law.
In October 2003, the Third District Court of Appeals denied
class counsels motions seeking, among other things, a
rehearing by the court. Class counsel filed a motion with the
Florida Supreme Court to invoke discretionary review on the
basis that the Third District Court of Appeals decision
construes the due process provisions of the state and federal
constitutions and conflicts with other appellate and supreme
court decisions. In May 2004, the Florida Supreme Court agreed
to review the case. Oral argument was held in November 2004. If
the Third District Court of Appeals ruling is not upheld
on further appeal, it will have a material adverse effect on the
Company.
In May 2000, legislation was enacted in Florida that limits the
size of any bond required, pending appeal, to stay execution of
a punitive damages verdict to the lesser of the punitive award
plus twice the statutory rate of interest, $100,000 or 10% of
the net worth of the defendant, but the limitation on the bond
does not affect the amount of the underlying verdict. In
November 2000, Liggett filed the $3,450 bond required by the
Florida law in order to stay execution of the Engle
judgment, pending appeal. Legislation limiting the amount of
the bond required to file an appeal of an adverse judgment has
been enacted in over 30 states.
In May 2001, Liggett, Philip Morris and Lorillard Tobacco
Company reached an agreement with the class in the Engle
case, which provided assurance of Liggetts ability to
appeal the jurys July 2000 verdict. As required by the
agreement, Liggett paid $6,273 into an escrow account to be held
for the benefit of the Engle class, and released, along
with Liggetts existing $3,450 statutory bond, to the court
for the benefit of the class upon completion of the appeals
process, regardless of the outcome of the appeal. As a result,
the Company recorded a $9,723 pre-tax charge to the consolidated
statement of operations for the first quarter of 2001. The
agreement, which was approved by the court, assured that the
stay of execution, in effect pursuant to the Florida bonding
statute, would not be lifted or limited at any point until
completion of all appeals, including an appeal to the United
States Supreme Court. If Liggetts balance sheet net worth
fell below $33,781 (as determined in accordance with generally
accepted accounting principles in effect as of July 14,
2000), the agreement provided that the stay granted in favor of
Liggett in the agreement would terminate and the Engle
class would be free to challenge the Florida bonding statute.
In June 2002, the jury in a Florida state court action entitled
Lukacs v. Philip Morris, et al. awarded $37,500
in compensatory damages in a case involving Liggett and two
other tobacco manufacturers. In March 2003, the court reduced
the amount of the compensatory damages to $25,100. The jury
found Liggett 50% responsible for the damages incurred by the
plaintiff. The Lukacs case was the first individual case
to be tried as part of Phase III of the Engle case;
the claims of all other individuals who are members of the class
were stayed pending resolution of the appeal of the Engle
verdict. The Lukacs verdict, which was subject to the
outcome of the Engle appeal, has been overturned as a
result of the appellate courts ruling. As discussed
F-39
VECTOR GROUP LTD.
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(Dollars in Thousands, Except Per Share
Amounts) (Continued)
above, class counsel in Engle is pursuing various
appellate remedies seeking reversal of the appellate
courts decision.
Class certification motions are pending in a number of putative
class actions. Classes remain certified against Liggett in West
Virginia (Blankenship), New York (Simon), Kansas
(Smith) and New Mexico (Romero). A number of class
certification denials are on appeal.
In August 2000, in Blankenship v. Philip Morris, a West
Virginia state court conditionally certified (only to the extent
of medical monitoring) a class of present or former West
Virginia smokers who desire to participate in a medical
monitoring plan. The trial of this case ended in January 2001,
when the judge declared a mistrial. In July 2001, the court
issued an order severing Liggett from the retrial of the case
which began in September 2001. In November 2001, the jury
returned a verdict in favor of the other defendants. In May
2004, the West Virginia Supreme Court affirmed the defense jury
verdict. In June 2004, plaintiffs motion for rehearing was
denied.
In April 2001, the California state court in Brown
granted in part plaintiffs motion for class
certification and certified a class comprised of adult residents
of California who smoked at least one of defendants
cigarettes during the applicable time period and who
were exposed to defendants marketing and advertising
activities in California. Certification was granted as to
plaintiffs claims that defendants violated
Californias unfair business practices statute. The court
subsequently defined the applicable class period for
plaintiffs claims, pursuant to a stipulation submitted by
the parties, as June 10, 1993 through April 23, 2001.
In March 2005, the court issued a ruling granting
defendants motion to decertify the class. Liggett is a
defendant in the case.
In September 2002, in In Re Simon II Litigation, the
federal district court for the Eastern District of New York
granted plaintiffs motion for certification of a
nationwide non-opt-out punitive damages class action against the
tobacco companies, including Liggett. The class is not seeking
compensatory damages, but was created to determine whether
smokers across the country may be entitled to punitive damages.
In February 2003, the United States Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit agreed to review the district courts class
certification decision, and oral argument was held in November
2003.
Class action suits have been filed in a number of states against
individual cigarette manufacturers, alleging that the use of the
terms lights and ultralights constitutes
unfair and deceptive trade practices. One such suit
(Schwab v. Philip Morris, et al.), pending in
federal court in New York against the cigarette manufacturers,
seeks to create a nationwide class of light
cigarette smokers and includes Liggett as a defendant. Trial in
Schwab is scheduled for November 2005.
In March 2003, in a class action brought against Philip Morris
on behalf of smokers of light cigarettes, a state court judge in
Illinois in the Price, et al., v. Philip Morris case
awarded $7,100,500 in actual damages to the class members,
$3,000,000 in punitive damages to the State of Illinois (which
was not a plaintiff in this matter), and approximately
$1,800,000 in attorneys fees and costs. Entry of judgment
has been stayed. Philip Morris has appealed the verdict.
Approximately 38 purported state and federal class action
complaints were filed against the cigarette manufacturers,
including Liggett, for alleged antitrust violations. The actions
allege that the cigarette manufacturers have engaged in a
nationwide and international conspiracy to fix the price of
cigarettes in violation of state and federal antitrust laws.
Plaintiffs allege that defendants price-fixing conspiracy
raised the price of cigarettes above a competitive level.
Plaintiffs in the 31 state actions purport to represent
classes of indirect purchasers of cigarettes in 16 states;
plaintiffs in the seven federal actions purport to represent a
nationwide class of wholesalers who purchased cigarettes
directly from the defendants. The federal class actions were
consolidated and, in July 2000, plaintiffs filed a single
consolidated complaint that did not name Liggett as a defendant,
although Liggett complied with discovery requests. In July 2002,
the court granted
F-40
VECTOR GROUP LTD.
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(Dollars in Thousands, Except Per Share
Amounts) (Continued)
defendants motion for summary judgment in the consolidated
federal cases, which decision was affirmed on appeal by the
United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. All
state court cases on behalf of indirect purchasers have been
dismissed, except for two cases pending in Kansas and New
Mexico. A Kansas state court, in the case of Smith v.
Philip Morris, et al., granted class certification in
November 2001. In April 2003, plaintiffs motion for class
certification was granted in Romero v. Philip
Morris, a case pending in New Mexico state court. In
February 2005, the New Mexico Supreme Court affirmed the trial
courts certification order. Liggett is one of the
defendants in the Kansas and New Mexico cases.
Governmental Actions. As of December 31, 2004, there
were approximately 12 Governmental Actions pending against
Liggett. In these proceedings, both foreign and domestic
governmental entities seek reimbursement for Medicaid and other
health care expenditures. The claims asserted in these health
care cost recovery actions vary. In most of these cases,
plaintiffs assert the equitable claim that the tobacco industry
was unjustly enriched by plaintiffs payment of
health care costs allegedly attributable to smoking and seek
reimbursement of those costs. Other claims made by some but not
all plaintiffs include the equitable claim of indemnity, common
law claims of negligence, strict liability, breach of express
and implied warranty, breach of special duty, fraud, negligent
misrepresentation, conspiracy, public nuisance, claims under
state and federal statutes governing consumer fraud, antitrust,
deceptive trade practices and false advertising, and claims
under RICO. Trial in the health care recovery case brought by
the City of St. Louis, Missouri, against the major
cigarette manufacturers is scheduled for January 2006.
Third-Party Payor Actions. As of December 31, 2004,
there were approximately five Third-Party Payor Actions pending
against Liggett. The claims in these cases are similar to those
in the Governmental Actions but have been commenced by insurance
companies, union health and welfare trust funds, asbestos
manufacturers and others. Nine United States Circuit Courts of
Appeal have ruled that Third-Party Payors did not have standing
to bring lawsuits against cigarette manufacturers. The United
States Supreme Court has denied petitions for certiorari in the
cases decided by five of the courts of appeal. However, a number
of Third-Party Payor Actions, including an action brought by
24 Blue Cross/ Blue Shield Plans, remain pending.
In June 2001, a jury in a third party payor action brought by
Empire Blue Cross and Blue Shield in the Eastern District of New
York rendered a verdict awarding the plaintiff $17,800 in
damages against the major cigarette manufacturers. As against
Liggett, the jury awarded the plaintiff damages of $89. In
February 2002, the court awarded plaintiffs counsel
$37,800 in attorneys fees, without allocating the fee
award among the several defendants. Liggett has appealed both
the jury verdict and the attorneys fee award. In September
2003, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
reversed the portion of the judgment relating to subrogation,
certified questions relating to plaintiffs direct claims
of deceptive business practices to the New York Court of Appeals
and deferred its ruling on the appeal of the attorneys
fees award pending the ruling on the certified questions. In
October 2004, the New York Court of Appeals ruled in
defendants favor on the certified questions and found that
plaintiffs direct claims are barred on grounds of
remoteness. In December 2004, the Second Circuit issued a
revised decision, vacating the award of compensatory damages and
attorneys fees, and reversing the judgment. In February
2005, the parties stipulated to a dismissal with prejudice.
In other Third-Party Payor Actions claimants have set forth
several additional theories of relief sought: funding of
corrective public education campaigns relating to issues of
smoking and health; funding for clinical smoking cessation
programs; disgorgement of profits from sales of cigarettes;
restitution; treble damages; and attorneys fees.
Nevertheless, no specific amounts are provided. It is understood
that requested damages against the tobacco company defendants in
these cases might be in the billions of dollars.
Federal Government Action. In September 1999, the United
States government commenced litigation against Liggett and the
other major tobacco companies in the United States District
Court for the District of Columbia. The action seeks to recover
an unspecified amount of health care costs paid for and
furnished, and
F-41
VECTOR GROUP LTD.
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(Dollars in Thousands, Except Per Share
Amounts) (Continued)
to be paid for and furnished, by the Federal Government for lung
cancer, heart disease, emphysema and other smoking-related
illnesses allegedly caused by the fraudulent and tortious
conduct of defendants, to restrain defendants and
co-conspirators from engaging in fraud and other unlawful
conduct in the future, and to compel defendants to disgorge the
proceeds of their unlawful conduct. The complaint alleges that
such costs total more than $20,000,000 annually. The action
asserted claims under three federal statutes, the Medical Care
Recovery Act (MCRA), the Medicare Secondary Payer
provisions of the Social Security Act (MSP) and
RICO. In September 2000, the court dismissed the
governments claims based on MCRA and MSP, reaffirming its
decision in July 2001. In the September 2000 decision, the court
also determined not to dismiss the governments RICO
claims, under which the government continues to seek court
relief to restrain the defendant tobacco companies from
allegedly engaging in fraud and other unlawful conduct and to
compel disgorgement. In a January 2003 filing with the court,
the government alleged that disgorgement by defendants of
approximately $289,000,000 is an appropriate remedy in the case.
In April 2004, the court denied Liggetts motion to be
dismissed from the case. Trial of the case began in September
2004 and is proceeding. In February 2005, the United States
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia upheld the
defendants motion for summary judgment to dismiss the
governments disgorgement claim, ruling that disgorgement
is not an available remedy in a civil RICO action. The
government has stated that it intends to appeal.
In June 2001, the United States Attorney General assembled a
team of three Department of Justice (DOJ) lawyers to
work on a possible settlement of the federal lawsuit. The DOJ
lawyers met with representatives of the tobacco industry,
including Liggett, in July 2001. No settlement was reached.
Settlements. In March 1996, Brooke Group Holding and
Liggett entered into an agreement, subject to court approval, to
settle the Castano class action tobacco litigation. The
Castano class was subsequently decertified by the court.
In March 1996, March 1997 and March 1998, Brooke Group Holding
and Liggett entered into settlements of smoking-related
litigation with the Attorneys General of 45 states and
territories. The settlements released both Brooke Group Holding
and Liggett from all smoking-related claims, including claims
for health care cost reimbursement and claims concerning sales
of cigarettes to minors.
In November 1998, Philip Morris, Brown & Williamson,
R.J. Reynolds and Lorillard (collectively, the Original
Participating Manufacturers or OPMs) and
Liggett (together with the OPMs and any other tobacco product
manufacturer that becomes a signatory, the Participating
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 Mariana Islands
(collectively, the Settling States) to settle the
asserted and unasserted health care cost recovery and certain
other claims of those Settling States. The MSA received final
judicial approval in each settling jurisdiction.
The MSA restricts tobacco product advertising and marketing
within the Settling States and otherwise restricts the
activities of Participating Manufacturers. Among other things,
the MSA prohibits the targeting of youth in the advertising,
promotion or marketing of tobacco products; bans the use of
cartoon characters in all tobacco advertising and promotion;
limits each Participating Manufacturer to one tobacco brand name
sponsorship during any 12-month period; bans all outdoor
advertising, with the exception of signs, 14 square feet or
less, at retail establishments that sell tobacco products;
prohibits payments for tobacco product placement in various
media; bans gift offers based on the purchase of tobacco
products without sufficient proof that the intended recipient is
an adult; prohibits Participating Manufacturers from licensing
third parties to advertise tobacco brand names in any manner
prohibited under the MSA; prohibits Participating Manufacturers
from using as a tobacco product brand name any nationally
recognized non-tobacco brand or trade name or the names of
sports teams, entertainment groups or individual celebrities;
and prohibits Participating Manufacturers from selling packs
containing fewer than 20 cigarettes.
F-42
VECTOR GROUP LTD.
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(Dollars in Thousands, Except Per Share
Amounts) (Continued)
The MSA also requires Participating Manufacturers to affirm
corporate principles to comply with the MSA and to reduce
underage usage of tobacco products and imposes requirements
applicable to lobbying activities conducted on behalf of
Participating Manufacturers.
Liggett has no payment obligations under the MSA except to the
extent its market share exceeds a base share of 125% of its 1997
market share, or approximately 1.65% of total cigarettes sold in
the United States. As a result of the Medallion acquisition in
April 2002, Vector Tobacco has no payment obligations under the
MSA, except to the extent its market share exceeds a base amount
of approximately 0.28% of total cigarettes sold in the United
States. During 1999 and 2000, Liggetts market share did
not exceed the base amount. According to data from Management
Science Associates, Inc., domestic shipments by Liggett and
Vector Tobacco accounted for approximately 2.2% of the total
cigarettes shipped in the United States during 2001, 2.4% during
2002, 2.5% during 2003 and 2.3% during 2004. On April 15 of any
year following a year in which Liggetts and/or Vector
Tobaccos market shares exceed their base shares, Liggett
and/or Vector Tobacco will pay on each excess unit an amount
equal (on a per-unit basis) to that due during the same
following year by the OPMs under the annual and strategic
contribution payment provisions of the MSA, subject to
applicable adjustments, offsets and reductions. In March and
April 2002, Liggett and Vector Tobacco paid a total of $31,130
for their 2001 MSA obligations. In March and April 2003, Liggett
and Vector Tobacco paid a total of $37,541 for their 2002 MSA
obligations. At that time, funds were held back based on
Liggetts and Vector Tobaccos belief that their MSA
payments for 2002 should be reduced as a result of market share
loss to non-participating manufacturers. In June 2003, Liggett
and Vector Tobacco reached a settlement with the jurisdictions
party to the MSA whereby Liggett and Vector Tobacco agreed to
pay $2,478 in April 2004 to resolve these claims. In April 2004,
Liggett and Vector Tobacco paid a total of $50,322 for their
2003 MSA obligations. Liggett and Vector Tobacco have expensed
$23,315 for their estimated MSA obligations for 2004 as part of
cost of goods sold. Under the annual and strategic contribution
payment provisions of the MSA, the OPMs (and Liggett and Vector
Tobacco to the extent their market shares exceed their base
shares) are required to pay the following annual amounts
(subject to certain adjustments):
|
|
|
|
|
Year |
|
Amount | |
|
|
| |
2005 2007
|
|
$ |
8,000,000 |
|
2008 2017
|
|
$ |
8,139,000 |
|
2018 and each year thereafter
|
|
$ |
9,000,000 |
|
These annual payments will be allocated based on relative unit
volume of domestic cigarette shipments. The payment obligations
under the MSA are the several, and not joint, obligations of
each Participating Manufacturer and are not the responsibility
of any parent or affiliate of a Participating Manufacturer.
Liggett has recently been notified that all Participating
Manufacturers payment obligations under the MSA, dating
from the agreements execution in late 1998, have been
recalculated utilizing net unit amounts, rather than gross unit
amounts (which have been utilized since 1999). The change in the
method of calculation could, among other things, require
additional payments by Liggett under the MSA of approximately
$2,000 per year for the period 2001 through 2004, or a
total of approximately $8,000, and require Liggett to pay an
additional amount of approximately $2,000 per year in 2005
and in future periods by lowering Liggetts market share
exemption under the MSA.
Liggett has objected to this retroactive change, and intends to
challenge it by way of arbitration or court proceeding if it is
ultimately implemented. Liggett contends that the retroactive
change from utilizing gross unit amounts to net unit amounts is
impermissible for several reasons, including that:
|
|
|
|
|
utilization of net unit amounts is not required by the MSA (as
reflected by, among other things, the utilization of gross unit
amounts for the past six years), |
|
|
|
such a change is not authorized without the consent of affected
parties to the MSA, |
F-43
VECTOR GROUP LTD.
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(Dollars in Thousands, Except Per Share
Amounts) (Continued)
|
|
|
|
|
the MSA provides for four-year time limitation periods for
revisiting calculations and determinations, which precludes
recalculating Liggetts 1997 Market Share (and thus,
Liggetts market share exemption), and |
|
|
|
Liggett and others have relied upon the calculations based on
gross unit amounts for the past six years. |
The MSA replaces Liggetts prior settlements with all
states and territories except for Florida, Mississippi, Texas
and Minnesota. Each of these four states, prior to the effective
date of the MSA, negotiated and executed settlement agreements
with each of the other major tobacco companies, separate from
those settlements reached previously with Liggett.
Liggetts agreements with these states remain in force and
effect, and Liggett made various payments to these states during
1996, 1997 and 1998 under the agreements. These states
settlement agreements with Liggett contained most-favored
nations provisions, which could reduce Liggetts and
Brooke Group Holdings payment obligations based on
subsequent settlements or resolutions by those states with
certain other tobacco companies. Beginning in 1999, Liggett
determined that, based on each of these four states
settlements or resolutions with United States Tobacco Company,
Liggetts payment obligations to those states have been
eliminated, except for a $100 a year payment to Minnesota
negotiated in 2003, to be paid any year cigarettes manufactured
by Liggett are sold in that state. With respect to all
non-economic obligations under the previous settlements, both
Brooke Group Holding and Liggett are entitled to the most
favorable provisions as between the MSA and each states
respective settlement with the other major tobacco companies.
Therefore, Liggetts non-economic obligations to all states
and territories are now defined by the MSA.
In 2004, the Attorneys General for each of Florida, Mississippi
and Texas advised Liggett that they believed that Liggett has
failed to make all required payments under the settlement
agreements with these three states for the period 1998 through
2003 and that additional payments may be due for 2004 and
subsequent years. Liggett believes these allegations are without
merit, based, among other things, on the language of the
most-favored nations provisions of the settlement agreements. In
December 2004, the State of Florida offered to settle all
amounts allegedly owed by Liggett for the period through 2003
for the sum of $13,500. In November 2004, the State of
Mississippi offered to settle all amounts allegedly owed by
Liggett for the period through 2003 for the sum of $6,500. In
March 2005, the State of Florida reaffirmed its December 2004
offer to settle and provided Liggett with a 60 day notice
to cure its purported default in payment.
No amounts have been accrued in the accompanying financial
statements for any additional amounts that may be payable by
Liggett under the MSA, due to the recalculation of the
Participating Manufacturers payment obligations, or under
the settlement agreements with these three states. There can be
no assurance that Liggett will prevail and that Liggett will not
be required to make additional material payments under the MSA
and the settlement agreements with these three states, which
payments could adversely affect the Companys consolidated
financial position, results of operations or cash flows.
On August 30, 2004, the Company announced that Liggett and
Vector Tobacco had notified the Attorneys General of
46 states that they intend to initiate proceedings against
the Attorneys General for violating the terms of the MSA. The
Companys subsidiaries allege that the Attorneys General
violated their rights and the MSA by extending unauthorized
favorable financial terms to Miami based Vibo Corporation d/b/a/
General Tobacco when, on August 19, 2004, the Attorneys
General entered into an agreement with General Tobacco allowing
it to become a Subsequent Participating Manufacturer under the
MSA. General Tobacco imports discount cigarettes manufactured in
Colombia, South America.
In the notice sent to the Attorneys General, the Companys
subsidiaries indicate that they will seek to enforce the terms
of the MSA, void the General Tobacco agreement and enjoin the
Settling States and National Association of Attorneys General
from listing General Tobacco as a Participating Manufacturer on
their websites.
F-44
VECTOR GROUP LTD.
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(Dollars in Thousands, Except Per Share
Amounts) (Continued)
Copies of the various settlement agreements are filed as
exhibits to the Companys Annual Report on Form 10-K
and the discussion herein is qualified in its entirety by
reference thereto.
Trials. Trial in the United States government action
began on September 21, 2004 in federal court in the
District of Columbia. Cases currently scheduled for trial during
the next six months include two individual actions in Florida
state court, with trial in one of these cases scheduled for
March 2005 and trial in another scheduled for May 2005. Liggett
is the sole defendant in each of these cases. Trial dates,
however, are subject to change.
Management is not able to predict the outcome of the litigation
pending against Brooke Group Holding or Liggett. Litigation is
subject to many uncertainties. In May 2003, a Florida
intermediate appellate court overturned a $790,000 punitive
damages award against Liggett and decertified the Engle
smoking and health class action. In May 2004, the Florida
Supreme Court agreed to review the case. Oral argument was held
in November 2004. If the intermediate appellate courts
ruling is not upheld on further appeal, it will have a material
adverse effect on the Company. In November 2000, Liggett filed
the $3,450 bond required under the bonding statute enacted in
2000 by the Florida legislature which limits the size of any
bond required, pending appeal, to stay execution of a punitive
damages verdict. In May 2001, Liggett reached an agreement with
the class in the Engle case, which provided assurance to
Liggett that the stay of execution, in effect pursuant to the
Florida bonding statute, would not be lifted or limited at any
point until completion of all appeals, including to the United
States Supreme Court. As required by the agreement, Liggett paid
$6,273 into an escrow account to be held for the benefit of the
Engle class, and released, along with Liggetts
existing $3,450 statutory bond, to the court for the benefit of
the class upon completion of the appeals process, regardless of
the outcome of the appeal. As a result, the Company recorded a
$9,723 pre-tax charge to the consolidated statement of
operations for the first quarter of 2001. In June 2002, the jury
in an individual case brought under the third phase of the
Engle case awarded $37,500 (subsequently reduced by the
court to $25,100) of compensatory damages against Liggett and
two other defendants and found Liggett 50% responsible for the
damages. The verdict, which was subject to the outcome of the
Engle appeal, has been overturned as a result of the
appellate courts ruling. In April 2004, a jury in a
Florida state court action awarded compensatory damages of
approximately $540 against Liggett in an individual action. In
addition, plaintiffs counsel was awarded legal fees of
$752. Liggett intends to appeal the verdict. It is possible that
additional cases could be decided unfavorably and that there
could be further adverse developments in the Engle case.
Liggett may enter into discussions in an attempt to settle
particular cases if it believes it is appropriate to do so.
Management cannot predict the cash requirements related to any
future settlements and judgments, including cash required to
bond any appeals, and there is a risk that those requirements
will not be able to be met. An unfavorable outcome of a pending
smoking and health case could encourage the commencement of
additional similar litigation. Management is unable to make a
meaningful estimate with respect to the amount or range of loss
that could result from an unfavorable outcome of the cases
pending against Brooke Group Holding or Liggett or the costs of
defending such cases. The complaints filed in these cases rarely
detail alleged damages. Typically, the claims set forth in an
individuals complaint against the tobacco industry pray
for money damages in an amount to be determined by a jury, plus
punitive damages and costs. These damage claims are typically
stated as being for the minimum necessary to invoke the
jurisdiction of the court.
It is possible that the Companys consolidated financial
position, results of operations or cash flows could be
materially adversely affected by an unfavorable outcome in any
such smoking-related litigation.
Liggetts and Vector Tobaccos management are unaware
of any material environmental conditions affecting their
existing facilities. Liggetts and Vector Tobaccos
management believe that current operations are conducted in
material compliance with all environmental laws and regulations
and other laws and regulations governing cigarette
manufacturers. Compliance with federal, state and local
provisions regulating the discharge of materials into the
environment, or otherwise relating to the protection of the
environment, has
F-45
VECTOR GROUP LTD.
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(Dollars in Thousands, Except Per Share
Amounts) (Continued)
not had a material effect on the capital expenditures, results
of operations or competitive position of Liggett or Vector
Tobacco.
Liggett has been served in three reparations actions brought by
descendants of slaves. Plaintiffs in these actions claim that
defendants, including Liggett, profited from the use of slave
labor. Seven additional cases have been filed in California,
Illinois and New York. Liggett is a named defendant in only one
of these additional cases, but has not been served.
There are several other proceedings, lawsuits and claims pending
against the Company and certain of its consolidated subsidiaries
unrelated to smoking or tobacco product liability. Management is
of the opinion that the liabilities, if any, ultimately
resulting from such other proceedings, lawsuits and claims
should not materially affect the Companys financial
position, results of operations or cash flows.
Legislation and Regulation:
Many cities and states have recently enacted legislation banning
smoking in public places including offices, restaurants, public
buildings and bars. Efforts to limit smoking in public places
could have a material adverse effect on the Company.
In January 1993, the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) released a report on the respiratory effect of
secondary smoke which concludes that secondary smoke is a known
human lung carcinogen in adults and in children, causes
increased respiratory tract disease and middle ear disorders and
increases the severity and frequency of asthma. In June 1993,
the two largest of the major domestic cigarette manufacturers,
together with other segments of the tobacco and distribution
industries, commenced a lawsuit against the EPA seeking a
determination that the EPA did not have the statutory authority
to regulate secondary smoke, and that given the scientific
evidence and the EPAs failure to follow its own guidelines
in making the determination, the EPAs classification of
secondary smoke was arbitrary and capricious. In July 1998, a
federal district court vacated those sections of the report
relating to lung cancer, finding that the EPA may have reached
different conclusions had it complied with relevant statutory
requirements. The federal government appealed the courts
ruling. In December 2002, the United States Court of Appeals for
the Fourth Circuit rejected the industry challenge to the EPA
report ruling that it was not subject to court review. Issuance
of the report may encourage efforts to limit smoking in public
areas.
In February 1996, the United States Trade representative issued
an advance notice of proposed rule making concerning
how tobacco is imported under a previously established tobacco
tariff rate quota (TRQ) should be allocated.
Currently, tobacco imported under the TRQ is allocated on a
first-come, first-served basis, meaning that entry
is allowed on an open basis to those first requesting entry in
the quota year. Others in the cigarette industry have suggested
an end-user licensing system under which the right
to import tobacco under the quota would be initially assigned
based on domestic market share. Such an approach, if adopted,
could have a material adverse effect on the Company.
In August 1996, the Food and Drug Administration (the
FDA) filed in the Federal Register a Final Rule
classifying tobacco as a drug or medical
device, asserting jurisdiction over the manufacture and
marketing of tobacco products and imposing restrictions on the
sale, advertising and promotion of tobacco products. Litigation
was commenced challenging the legal authority of the FDA to
assert such jurisdiction, as well as challenging the
constitutionality of the rules. In March 2000, the United States
Supreme Court ruled that the FDA does not have the power to
regulate tobacco. Liggett supported the FDA Rule and began to
phase in compliance with certain of the proposed FDA regulations.
Since the Supreme Court decision, various proposals and
recommendations have been made for additional federal and state
legislation to regulate cigarette manufacturers. Congressional
advocates of FDA regulations have introduced legislation that
would give the FDA authority to regulate the manufacture, sale,
F-46
VECTOR GROUP LTD.
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(Dollars in Thousands, Except Per Share
Amounts) (Continued)
distribution and labeling of tobacco products to protect public
health, thereby allowing the FDA to reinstate its prior
regulations or adopt new or additional regulations. In October
2004, the Senate passed a bill, which did not become law,
providing for FDA regulation of tobacco products. The ultimate
outcome of these proposals cannot be predicted, but FDA
regulation of tobacco products could have a material adverse
effect on the Company.
In October 2004, federal legislation was enacted which will
eliminate the federal tobacco quota and price support program.
Pursuant to the legislation, manufacturers of tobacco products
will be assessed $10,140,000 over a ten year period to
compensate tobacco growers and quota holders for the elimination
of their quota rights. Cigarette manufacturers will initially be
responsible for 96.3% of the assessment (subject to adjustment
in the future), which will be allocated based on relative unit
volume of domestic cigarette shipments. Management currently
estimates that Liggetts assessment will be approximately
$23,000 for the first year of the program which began
January 1, 2005. The cost of the legislation to the three
largest cigarette manufacturers will likely be less than the
cost to smaller manufacturers, including Liggett and Vector
Tobacco, because one effect of the legislation is that the three
largest manufacturers will no longer be obligated to make
certain contractual payments, commonly known as Phase II
payments, they agreed in 1999 to make to tobacco-producing
states. The ultimate impact of this legislation cannot be
determined, but there is a risk that smaller manufacturers, such
as Liggett and Vector Tobacco, will be disproportionately
affected by the legislation, which could have a material adverse
effect on the Company.
In August 1996, Massachusetts enacted legislation requiring
tobacco companies to publish information regarding the
ingredients in cigarettes and other tobacco products sold in
that state. In December 2002, the United States Court of Appeals
for the First Circuit ruled that the ingredients disclosure
provisions violated the constitutional prohibition against
unlawful seizure of property by forcing firms to reveal trade
secrets. The decision was not appealed by the state. Liggett
began voluntarily complying with this legislation in December
1997 by providing ingredient information to the Massachusetts
Department of Public Health and, notwithstanding the appellate
courts ruling, has continued to provide ingredient
disclosure. Liggett also provides ingredient information
annually, as required by law, to the states of Texas and
Minnesota. Several other states are considering ingredient
disclosure legislation and the Senate bill providing for FDA
regulation also calls for, among other things, ingredient
disclosure.
Cigarettes are subject to substantial and increasing federal,
state and local excise taxes. The federal excise tax on
cigarettes is currently $0.39 per pack. State and local
sales and excise taxes vary considerably and, when combined with
sales taxes, local taxes and the current federal excise tax, may
currently exceed $4.00 per pack. In 2004, 10 states
enacted increases in excise taxes. Congress has considered
significant increases in the federal excise tax or other
payments from tobacco manufacturers, and various states and
other jurisdictions have currently under consideration or
pending legislation proposing further state excise tax
increases. Management believes increases in excise and similar
taxes have had an adverse impact on sales of cigarettes.
Various state governments have adopted or are considering
adopting legislation establishing ignition propensity standards
for cigarettes. Compliance with this legislation could be
burdensome and costly. In June 2000, the New York State
legislature passed legislation charging the states Office
of Fire Prevention and Control, referred to as the
OFPC, with developing standards for
fire-safe or self-extinguishing cigarettes. All
cigarettes manufactured for sale in New York state must be
manufactured to certain self-extinguishment standards set out in
the regulations. Liggett and Vector Tobacco have not
historically provided products that would be compliant under
these new OFPC regulations, and certain design and manufacturing
changes have been necessary for cigarettes manufactured for sale
in New York to comply with the standards. Inventories of
cigarettes existing in the wholesale and retail trade as of
June 28, 2004 that do not comply with the standards, may
continue to be sold provided New York tax stamps have been
affixed and such inventories have been purchased in comparable
quantities to the same period in the previous year. Liggett and
Vector Tobacco have complied with these New York regulatory
requirements. Similar legislation is being considered by other
state
F-47
VECTOR GROUP LTD.
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(Dollars in Thousands, Except Per Share
Amounts) (Continued)
governments and at the federal level. Compliance with such
legislation could harm the business of Liggett and Vector
Tobacco, particularly if there are varying standards from state
to state.
Federal or state regulators may object to Vector Tobaccos
reduced carcinogen and low nicotine and nicotine-free cigarette
products as unlawful or allege they bear deceptive or
unsubstantiated product claims, and seek the removal of the
products from the marketplace, or significant changes to
advertising. Various concerns regarding Vector Tobaccos
advertising practices have been expressed to Vector Tobacco by
certain state attorneys general. Vector Tobacco has engaged in
discussions in an effort to resolve these concerns and Vector
Tobacco has recently agreed to suspend all print advertising for
its Quest brand while discussions are pending. If Vector
Tobacco is unable to advertise its Quest brand, it could
have a material adverse effect on sales of Quest.
Allegations by federal or state regulators, public health
organizations and other tobacco manufacturers that Vector
Tobaccos products are unlawful, or that its public
statements or advertising contain misleading or unsubstantiated
health claims or product comparisons, may result in litigation
or governmental proceedings. Vector Tobaccos business may
become subject to extensive domestic and international
governmental regulation. Various proposals have been made for
federal, state and international legislation to regulate
cigarette manufacturers generally, and reduced constituent
cigarettes specifically. It is possible that laws and
regulations may be adopted covering issues like the manufacture,
sale, distribution, advertising and labeling of tobacco products
as well as any express or implied health claims associated with
reduced carcinogen and low nicotine and nicotine-free cigarette
products and the use of genetically modified tobacco. A system
of regulation by agencies like the FDA, the Federal Trade
Commission or the United States Department of Agriculture may be
established. In addition, a group of public health organizations
submitted a petition to the FDA, alleging that the marketing of
the OMNI product is subject to regulation by the FDA under
existing law. Vector Tobacco has filed a response in opposition
to the petition. The FTC has also expressed interest in the
regulation of tobacco products made by tobacco manufacturers,
including Vector Tobacco, which bear reduced carcinogen claims.
The ultimate outcome of any of the foregoing cannot be
predicted, but any of the foregoing could have a material
adverse impact on the Company.
In addition to the foregoing, there have been a number of other
restrictive regulatory actions, adverse legislative and
political decisions and other unfavorable developments
concerning cigarette smoking and the tobacco industry. These
developments may negatively affect the perception of potential
triers of fact with respect to the tobacco industry, possibly to
the detriment of certain pending litigation, and may prompt the
commencement of additional similar litigation or legislation.
Other Matters:
In March 1997, a stockholder derivative suit was filed in
Delaware Chancery Court against New Valley, as a nominal
defendant, its directors and Brooke Group Holding by a
stockholder of New Valley. The suit alleges that New
Valleys purchase of the BrookeMil Ltd. shares from Brooke
(Overseas) Ltd., which was then an indirect subsidiary of Brooke
Group Holding, in January 1997 constituted a self-dealing
transaction which involved the payment of excessive
consideration by New Valley. The plaintiff seeks a declaration
that New Valleys directors breached their fiduciary duties
and Brooke Group Holding aided and abetted such breaches and
that damages be awarded to New Valley. In December 1999, another
stockholder of New Valley commenced an action in Delaware
Chancery Court substantially similar to the March 1997 action.
This stockholder alleges, among other things, that the
consideration paid by New Valley for the BrookeMil shares was
excessive, unfair and wasteful, that the special committee of
New Valleys board lacked independence, and that the
appraisal and fairness opinion were flawed. By order of the
court, both actions were consolidated. In January 2001, the
court denied a motion to dismiss the consolidated action. In
March 2005, New Valley, its directors and Brooke Group Holding
settled the consolidated action. The defendants did not admit
any wrongdoing as part of the settlement, which is subject to
court approval. Under the agreement, the Company will pay New
Valley $7,000, and New Valley will pay legal fees and expenses
of up to $2,150. The Company
F-48
VECTOR GROUP LTD.
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(Dollars in Thousands, Except Per Share
Amounts) (Continued)
recorded a charge to operating, selling, administrative and
general expense in 2004 of $4,177 (net of minority interests)
related to the settlement.
In July 1999, a purported class action was commenced on behalf
of New Valleys former Class B preferred shareholders
against New Valley, Brooke Group Holding and certain directors
and officers of New Valley in Delaware Chancery Court. The
complaint alleges that the recapitalization, approved by a
majority of each class of New Valleys stockholders in May
1999, was fundamentally unfair to the Class B preferred
shareholders, the proxy statement relating to the
recapitalization was materially deficient and the defendants
breached their fiduciary duties to the Class B preferred
shareholders in approving the transaction. The plaintiffs seek
class certification of the action and an award of compensatory
damages as well as all costs and fees. The Court dismissed six
of plaintiffs nine claims alleging inadequate disclosure
in the proxy statement. Brooke Group Holding and New Valley
believe that the remaining allegations are without merit and
filed a motion for summary judgment on the remaining three
claims. Oral argument on the summary judgment motion was held in
February 2005.
Although there can be no assurances, Brooke Group Holding and
New Valley believe, after consultation with counsel, that the
ultimate resolution of these matters will not have a material
adverse effect on the Companys or New Valleys
consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash
flows.
In February 2004, Liggett Vector Brands and another cigarette
manufacturer entered into a five year agreement with a
subsidiary of the American Wholesale Marketers Association to
support a program to permit tobacco distributors to secure, on
reasonable terms, tax stamp bonds required by state and local
governments for the distribution of cigarettes. Under the
agreement, Liggett Vector Brands has agreed to pay a portion of
losses, if any, incurred by the surety under the bond program,
with a maximum loss exposure of $500 for Liggett Vector Brands.
To secure its potential obligations under the agreement, Liggett
Vector Brands has delivered to the subsidiary of the Association
a $100 letter of credit and a demand note for $400. Liggett
Vector Brands has incurred no losses to date under this
agreement, and the Company believes the fair value of Liggett
Vector Brands obligation under the agreement was
immaterial at December 31, 2004.
As of December 31, 2004, New Valley had $300 of remaining
prepetition bankruptcy-related claims. The remaining claims may
be subject to future adjustments based on potential settlements
or decisions of the court.
|
|
16. |
RELATED PARTY TRANSACTIONS |
In connection with the Companys convertible note offering
in November 2004, the purchasers of the notes required the
principal stockholder and Chairman of the Company to enter into
an agreement granting the placement agent for the offering the
right, in its sole discretion, to borrow up to
3,472,875 shares of Common Stock from the principal
stockholder or an entity affiliated with him during a 30-month
period, subject to extension under various conditions, and that
he agree not to dispose of such shares during this period,
subject to limited exceptions. In consideration for the
principal stockholder agreeing to lend his shares in order to
facilitate the Companys offering and accepting the
resulting liquidity risk, the Company agreed to pay him or an
affiliate designated by him an annual fee, payable on a
quarterly basis in cash or, by mutual agreement of the Company
and the principal stockholder, shares of Common Stock, equal to
1% of the aggregate market value of 3,472,875 shares of
Common Stock. In addition, the Company agreed to hold the
principal stockholder harmless on an after-tax basis against any
increase, if any, in the income tax rate applicable to dividends
paid on the shares as a result of the share loan agreement. The
principal stockholder has the right to assign to the
Companys President some or all of his obligation to lend
the shares under such agreement. For the year ended
December 31, 2004, the Company paid an entity affiliated
with the principal stockholder an aggregate of $69 under this
agreement.
F-49
VECTOR GROUP LTD.
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(Dollars in Thousands, Except Per Share
Amounts) (Continued)
In connection with the Companys convertible note offering
in 2001, a similar agreement with the principal stockholder of
the Company had been in place for the three-year period ended
June 29, 2004. For the years ended December 31, 2004,
2003 and 2002, the Company paid an entity affiliated with the
principal stockholder an aggregate of $291, $498 and $616,
respectively, under this agreement.
An outside director of the Company is a stockholder of and
serves as the chairman and treasurer of, and the Companys
President is a stockholder and registered representative in, a
registered broker-dealer that has performed stock brokerage and
related services for New Valley. The broker-dealer received
brokerage commissions and other income of approximately $46, $48
and $87 from New Valley during 2004, 2003 and 2002, respectively.
Various executive officers and directors of the Company and New
Valley serve as members of the Board of Directors of Ladenburg
Thalmann Financial Services, Inc., which is indebted to New
Valley. (Refer to Note 19.)
The Companys President, a firm of which he serves as
Chairman of the Board and the firms affiliates received
ordinary and customary insurance commissions aggregating
approximately $587, $541 and $606 in 2004, 2003 and 2002,
respectively, on various insurance policies issued for the
Company and its subsidiaries and investees.
|
|
17. |
FAIR VALUE OF FINANCIAL INSTRUMENTS |
The estimated fair value of the Companys financial
instruments have been determined by the Company using available
market information and appropriate valuation methodologies
described in Note 1. However, considerable judgment is
required to develop the estimates of fair value and,
accordingly, the estimates presented herein are not necessarily
indicative of the amounts that could be realized in a current
market exchange.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31, 2004 | |
|
December 31, 2003 | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
Carrying | |
|
|
|
Carrying | |
|
|
|
|
Amount | |
|
Fair Value | |
|
Amount | |
|
Fair Value | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
Financial assets:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents
|
|
$ |
110,004 |
|
|
$ |
110,004 |
|
|
$ |
74,808 |
|
|
$ |
74,808 |
|
|
Investment securities available for sale
|
|
|
14,927 |
|
|
|
14,927 |
|
|
|
67,521 |
|
|
|
67,521 |
|
|
Restricted assets
|
|
|
4,980 |
|
|
|
4,980 |
|
|
|
6,342 |
|
|
|
6,342 |
|
|
Long-term investments, net
|
|
|
2,410 |
|
|
|
15,206 |
|
|
|
2,431 |
|
|
|
11,741 |
|
Financial liabilities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Notes payable and long-term debt
|
|
|
260,646 |
|
|
|
245,517 |
|
|
|
310,739 |
|
|
|
292,998 |
|
|
Embedded derivatives
|
|
|
25,686 |
|
|
|
25,686 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
18. |
PHILIP MORRIS BRAND TRANSACTION |
In November 1998, the Company and Liggett granted Philip Morris
Incorporated options to purchase interests in Trademarks LLC
which holds three domestic cigarette brands, L&M,
Chesterfield and Lark, formerly held by
Liggetts subsidiary, Eve Holdings Inc.
Under the terms of the Philip Morris agreements, Eve contributed
the three brands to Trademarks, a newly-formed limited liability
company, in exchange for 100% of two classes of Trademarks
interests, the Class A Voting Interest and the Class B
Redeemable Nonvoting Interest. Philip Morris acquired two
options to purchase the interests from Eve. In December 1998,
Philip Morris paid Eve a total of $150,000 for the options,
$5,000 for the option for the Class A interest and $145,000
for the option for the Class B interest.
F-50
VECTOR GROUP LTD.
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(Dollars in Thousands, Except Per Share
Amounts) (Continued)
The Class A option entitled Philip Morris to purchase the
Class A interest for $10,100. On March 19, 1999,
Philip Morris exercised the Class A option, and the closing
occurred on May 24, 1999.
The Class B option entitles Philip Morris to purchase the
Class B interest for $139,900. The Class B option will
be exercisable during the 90-day period beginning on
December 2, 2008, with Philip Morris being entitled to
extend the 90-day period for up to an additional six months
under certain circumstances. The Class B interest will also
be redeemable by Trademarks for $139,900 during the same period
the Class B option may be exercised.
On May 24, 1999, Trademarks borrowed $134,900 from a
lending institution. The loan is guaranteed by Eve and
collateralized by a pledge by Trademarks of the three brands and
Trademarks interest in the trademark license agreement
(discussed below) and by a pledge by Eve of its Class B
interest. In connection with the closing of the Class A
option, Trademarks distributed the loan proceeds to Eve as the
holder of the Class B interest. The cash exercise price of
the Class B option and Trademarks redemption price
were reduced by the amount distributed to Eve. Upon Philip
Morris exercise of the Class B option or
Trademarks exercise of its redemption right, Philip Morris
or Trademarks, as relevant, will be required to obtain
Eves release from its guaranty. The Class B interest
will be entitled to a guaranteed payment of $500 each year with
the Class A interest allocated all remaining income or loss
of Trademarks. The Company believes the fair value of Eves
guarantee is negligible at December 31, 2004.
Trademarks has granted Philip Morris an exclusive license of the
three brands for an 11-year term expiring May 24, 2010 at
an annual royalty based on sales of cigarettes under the brands,
subject to a minimum annual royalty payment equal to the annual
debt service obligation on the loan plus $1,000.
If Philip Morris fails to exercise the Class B option, Eve
will have an option to put its Class B interest to Philip
Morris, or Philip Morris designees, at a put price that is
$5,000 less than the exercise price of the Class B option
(and includes Philip Morris obtaining Eves release
from its loan guarantee). The Eve put option is exercisable at
any time during the 90-day period beginning March 2, 2010.
If the Class B option, Trademarks redemption right
and the Eve put option expire unexercised, the holder of the
Class B interest will be entitled to convert the
Class B interest, at its election, into a Class A
interest with the same rights to share in future profits and
losses, the same voting power and the same claim to capital as
the entire existing outstanding Class A interest, i.e., a
50% interest in Trademarks.
Upon the closing of the exercise of the Class A option and
the distribution of the loan proceeds on May 24, 1999,
Philip Morris obtained control of Trademarks, and the Company
recognized a pre-tax gain of $294,078 in its consolidated
financial statements and established a deferred tax liability of
$103,100 relating to the gain. As discussed in Note 11 the
Internal Revenue Service has issued to the Company a notice of
proposed adjustment asserting, for tax purposes, that the entire
gain should have been recognized by the Company in 1998 and 1999.
|
|
19. |
NEW VALLEY CORPORATION |
Acquisition of Real Estate. In December 2002, New Valley
purchased two office buildings in Princeton, New Jersey for a
total purchase price of $54,000. New Valley financed a portion
of the purchase price through a borrowing of $40,500 from HSBC
Realty Credit Corporation (USA). In February 2005, New Valley
completed the sale of the office buildings for $71,500. The
mortgage loan on the properties was retired at closing with the
proceeds of the sale. (Refer to Notes 8 and 20.)
Also in December 2002, New Valley and the other owners of
Prudential Douglas Elliman Real Estate, formerly known as
Prudential Long Island Realty, contributed their interests in
Prudential Douglas Elliman Real Estate to Douglas Elliman
Realty, LLC, formerly known as Montauk Battery Realty LLC, a
newly formed entity. New Valley acquired a 50% ownership
interest in Douglas Elliman Realty, LLC, an increase
F-51
VECTOR GROUP LTD.
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(Dollars in Thousands, Except Per Share
Amounts) (Continued)
from its previous 37.2% interest in Prudential Douglas Elliman
Real Estate as a result of an additional investment of $1,413 by
New Valley and the redemption by Prudential Douglas Elliman Real
Estate of various ownership interests.
In March 2003, Douglas Elliman Realty, LLC purchased the leading
New York City-based residential brokerage firm, Douglas Elliman,
LLC, formerly known as Insignia Douglas Elliman, and an
affiliated property management company for $71,250. New Valley
invested an additional $9,500 in subordinated debt and equity of
Douglas Elliman Realty, LLC to help fund the acquisition. The
subordinated debt, which had an initial principal amount of
$9,500, bears interest at 12% per annum and is due in March
2013.
New Valley accounts for its 50% interest in Douglas Elliman
Realty LLC and in Koa Investors LLC on the equity method. Koa
Investors owns the Sheraton Keauhou Bay Resort & Spa in
Kailua-Kona, Hawaii. Following a major renovation, the property
reopened in the fourth quarter 2004 as a four star resort with
approximately 525 rooms.
New Valley recorded income of $11,612, $1,228 and $594 for the
years ended December 31, 2004, 2003 and 2002, respectively,
associated with Douglas Elliman Realty LLC. Summarized financial
information as of December 31, 2004 and 2003 and for the
three years ended December 31, 2004 for Douglas Elliman
Realty LLC is presented below. The summarized financial
information for the year ended December 31, 2003 includes
the results from operations of Douglas Elliman LLC and its
affiliated property management company from March 14, 2003
(date of acquisition) to December 31, 2003.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31, 2004 | |
|
December 31, 2003 | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
Cash
|
|
$ |
21,375 |
|
|
$ |
9,062 |
|
Other current assets
|
|
|
4,726 |
|
|
|
6,385 |
|
Property, plant and equipment, net
|
|
|
15,520 |
|
|
|
11,311 |
|
Trademarks
|
|
|
21,663 |
|
|
|
21,663 |
|
Goodwill
|
|
|
36,676 |
|
|
|
34,319 |
|
Other intangible assets, net
|
|
|
2,748 |
|
|
|
4,021 |
|
Other noncurrent assets
|
|
|
1,112 |
|
|
|
632 |
|
Notes payable current
|
|
|
4,998 |
|
|
|
8,944 |
|
Other current liabilities
|
|
|
17,757 |
|
|
|
10,176 |
|
Notes payable long term
|
|
|
69,942 |
|
|
|
68,562 |
|
Members equity (deficiency)
|
|
|
11,123 |
|
|
|
(289 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31, | |
|
|
| |
|
|
2004 | |
|
2003 | |
|
2002 | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
Revenues
|
|
$ |
286,816 |
|
|
$ |
179,853 |
|
|
$ |
59,290 |
|
Costs and expenses
|
|
|
253,862 |
|
|
|
166,278 |
|
|
|
56,929 |
|
Depreciation expense
|
|
|
4,533 |
|
|
|
3,640 |
|
|
|
556 |
|
Amortization expense
|
|
|
968 |
|
|
|
5,037 |
|
|
|
10 |
|
Interest expense, net
|
|
|
6,208 |
|
|
|
4,767 |
|
|
|
370 |
|
Other income
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
67 |
|
|
|
87 |
|
Income tax expense
|
|
|
645 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income
|
|
$ |
20,600 |
|
|
$ |
198 |
|
|
$ |
1,512 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
New Valley accounts for its interest in Koa Investors on the
equity method and recorded losses of $1,830, $327 and $1,343 for
the years ended December 31, 2004, 2003 and 2002,
respectively, associated with the
F-52
VECTOR GROUP LTD.
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(Dollars in Thousands, Except Per Share
Amounts) (Continued)
property. Summarized financial information as of
December 31, 2004 and 2003 and for the three years ended
December 31, 2004 for Koa Investors is presented below.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31, 2004 | |
|
December 31, 2003 | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
Cash
|
|
$ |
2,062 |
|
|
$ |
679 |
|
Restricted assets
|
|
|
5,538 |
|
|
|
|
|
Other current assets
|
|
|
988 |
|
|
|
141 |
|
Property, plant and equipment, net
|
|
|
77,339 |
|
|
|
19,850 |
|
Deferred financing costs, net
|
|
|
1,724 |
|
|
|
139 |
|
Account payable and other current liabilities
|
|
|
11,064 |
|
|
|
3,350 |
|
Notes payable
|
|
|
60,356 |
|
|
|
5,000 |
|
Members equity
|
|
|
16,231 |
|
|
|
12,459 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31, | |
|
|
| |
|
|
2004 | |
|
2003 | |
|
2002 | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
Revenues
|
|
$ |
2,806 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
Costs and operating expenses
|
|
|
4,588 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Management fees
|
|
|
440 |
|
|
|
500 |
|
|
|
500 |
|
Depreciation expense
|
|
|
625 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Amortization expense
|
|
|
104 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Loss on disposal of fixed assets
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,108 |
|
Interest expense, net
|
|
|
709 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net loss
|
|
$ |
(3,660 |
) |
|
$ |
(500 |
) |
|
$ |
(2,608 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Russian Real Estate. In April 2002, New Valley sold the
shares of BrookeMil Ltd., a wholly-owned subsidiary, for
approximately $22,000 before closing expenses. BrookeMil owned
the two Kremlin sites in Moscow, which were New Valleys
remaining real estate holdings in Russia. Under the terms of the
Western Realty Repin LLC joint venture of New Valley and Apollo
Real Estate Investment Fund III, L.P. (Apollo),
New Valley received approximately $7,500 of the net proceeds
from the sale and Apollo received approximately $12,500 of the
proceeds. New Valley recorded a gain on sale of real estate of
$8,484 for the year ended December 31, 2002 in connection
with the sale.
LTS. In November 2004, New Valley and the other holder of
the convertible notes of Ladenburg Thalmann Financial Services
Inc. (LTS) entered into a debt conversion agreement
with LTS. New Valley and the other holder agreed to convert
their notes, with an aggregate principal amount of $18,010,
together with the accrued interest, into common stock of LTS.
Pursuant to the debt conversion agreement, the conversion price
of the note held by New Valley was reduced from the previous
conversion price of approximately $2.08 to $0.50 per share
and New Valley and the other holder each agreed to purchase
$5,000 of LTS common stock at $0.45 per share.
The note conversion transaction was approved by the LTS
shareholders in January 2005 and closed in March 2005. At the
closing, New Valleys note, representing approximately
$9,938 of principal and accrued interest, was converted into
19,876,358 shares of LTS common stock and New Valley
purchased 11,111,111 LTS shares.
LTS borrowed $1,750 from New Valley in 2004 and an additional
$1,750 in the first quarter 2005. At the closing of the debt
conversion agreement, New Valley delivered these notes for
cancellation as partial payment for its purchase of LTS common
stock.
On March 4, 2005, New Valley announced that it would
distribute the 19,876,358 shares of LTS common stock it
acquired from the conversion of the note to holders of New
Valley common shares through a
F-53
VECTOR GROUP LTD.
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(Dollars in Thousands, Except Per Share
Amounts) (Continued)
special dividend. On the same date, the Company announced that
the Company would, in turn, distribute the
10,947,448 shares of LTS common stock that it would receive
from New Valley to the holders of its common stock as a special
dividend. The special dividends will be accomplished through pro
rata distributions of the LTS shares to be paid on
March 30, 2005 to holders of record as of March 18,
2005. New Valley stockholders will receive approximately 0.852
of an LTS share for each share of New Valley, and the
Companys stockholders will receive approximately 0.24 of
an LTS share for each share of the Company.
Following the distribution, New Valley will continue to hold the
11,111,111 shares of LTS common stock (approximately 9.2%
of the outstanding shares), the $5,000 of LTSs notes due
December 31, 2006 (discussed below) and a warrant to
purchase 100,000 shares of its common stock at
$1.00 per share.
In March 2002, LTS borrowed $2,500 from New Valley. The loan,
which bears interest at 1% above the prime rate, was due on the
earlier of December 31, 2003 or the completion of one or
more equity financings where LTS receives at least $5,000 in
total proceeds. In July 2002, LTS borrowed an additional $2,500
from New Valley on the same terms. In November 2002, New Valley
agreed, in connection with a $3,500 loan to LTS by an affiliate
of its clearing broker, to extend the maturity of the notes to
December 31, 2006 and to subordinate the notes to the
repayment of the loan.
New Valley evaluated its ability to collect the $13,198 of notes
and interest receivable from LTS at September 30, 2002.
These notes receivable include the $5,000 of notes issued in
2002 and the $8,010 convertible note issued to New Valley in May
2001 in connection with the LTS acquisition. New Valley
determined, based on then current trends in the broker-dealer
industry and LTSs operating results and liquidity needs,
that a reserve for uncollectibility should be established
against these notes and interest receivable. As a result, New
Valley recorded a charge of $13,198 in the third quarter of 2002.
Share Repurchase. In October 1999, New Valleys
Board of Directors authorized the repurchase of up to 2,000,000
common shares from time to time on the open market or in
privately negotiated transactions depending on market
conditions. As of December 31, 2004, New Valley had
repurchased 1,229,515 shares for approximately $4,895. At
December 31, 2004, the Company owned 58.2% of New
Valleys common shares.
Restricted Share Award. On January 10, 2005, the
President and Chief Operating Officer of New Valley, who also
serves in the same positions with the Company, was awarded a
restricted stock grant of 1,250,000 shares of New
Valleys common shares pursuant to New Valleys 2000
Long-Term Incentive Plan. Under the terms of the award,
one-seventh of the shares vest on July 15, 2005, with an
additional one-seventh vesting on each of the five succeeding
one-year anniversaries of the first vesting date through
July 15, 2010 and an additional one-seventh vesting on
January 15, 2011. In the event his employment with New
Valley is terminated for any reason other than his death, his
disability or a change of control of New Valley or Vector Group,
any remaining balance of the shares not previously vested will
be forfeited by him. Following the issuance of the restricted
shares, the Company ownership interest in New Valleys
common shares was 55.1%. New Valley will record deferred
compensation of $8,886 representing the fair market value of the
restricted shares on the date of the grant. The deferred
compensation will be amortized over the vesting period as a
charge to compensation expense. New Valley anticipates recording
$1,857 in compensation expense in 2005, $1,269 as compensation
expense in each of the years from 2006 to 2009, $1,899 in 2010
and $52 in 2011.
|
|
20. |
DISCONTINUED OPERATIONS |
Real Estate Leasing. As discussed in Note 19, in
February 2005, New Valley completed the sale for $71,500 of its
two office buildings in Princeton, N.J. As a result of the sale,
the consolidated financial statements of the Company reflect New
Valleys real estate leasing operations as discontinued
operations for the three years ended December 31, 2004.
Accordingly, revenues, costs and expenses, and cash flows of the
discontinued operations have been excluded from the respective
captions in the consolidated statements of operations and
consolidated statements of cash flows. The net operating results
of the discontinued operations
F-54
VECTOR GROUP LTD.
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(Dollars in Thousands, Except Per Share
Amounts) (Continued)
have been reported, net of applicable income taxes and minority
interests, as Income from discontinued operations,
and the net cash flows of these entities have been reported as
Net cash provided by (used in) discontinued
operations. The assets of the discontinued operations have
been recorded as Assets held for sale in the
consolidated balance sheets at December 31, 2004.
Summarized operating results of the discontinued real estate
leasing operations for the three years ended December 31,
2004 are as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2004 | |
|
2003 | |
|
2002 | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
Revenues
|
|
$ |
7,333 |
|
|
$ |
7,298 |
|
|
$ |
340 |
|
Expenses
|
|
|
5,240 |
|
|
|
4,952 |
|
|
|
227 |
|
Income from operations before income taxes and minority interests
|
|
|
2,093 |
|
|
|
2,346 |
|
|
|
113 |
|
Provision for income taxes
|
|
|
1,125 |
|
|
|
1,240 |
|
|
|
60 |
|
Minority interests
|
|
|
510 |
|
|
|
584 |
|
|
|
28 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income from discontinued operations
|
|
$ |
458 |
|
|
$ |
522 |
|
|
$ |
25 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gain on Disposal of Discontinued Operations. New Valley
recorded a gain on disposal of discontinued operations of $2,231
(net of minority interests and taxes) for the year ended
December 31, 2004 related to the adjustment of accruals
established during New Valleys bankruptcy proceedings in
1993 and 1994. The reversal of these accruals reduced various
accruals previously established and were made due to the
completion of settlements related to these matters. The
adjustment of these accruals is classified as gain on disposal
of discontinued operations since the original establishment of
such accruals was similarly classified as a reduction of gain on
disposal of discontinued operations.
The Companys significant business segments for each of the
three years ended December 31, 2004 were Liggett, Vector
Tobacco and real estate. The Liggett segment consists of the
manufacture and sale of conventional cigarettes and, for segment
reporting purposes, includes the operations of Medallion
acquired on April 1, 2002 (which operations are held for
legal purposes as part of Vector Tobacco). The Vector Tobacco
segment includes the development and marketing of the low
nicotine and nicotine-free cigarette products as well as the
development of reduced risk cigarette products and, for segment
reporting purposes, excludes the operations of Medallion. The
real estate segment includes New Valleys real estate
activities. The accounting policies of the segments are the same
as those described in the summary of significant accounting
policies.
F-55
VECTOR GROUP LTD.
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(Dollars in Thousands, Except Per Share
Amounts) (Continued)
Financial information for the Companys continuing
operations before taxes and minority interests for the years
ended December 31, 2004, 2003 and 2002 follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Vector | |
|
Real | |
|
Corporate | |
|
|
|
|
Liggett | |
|
Tobacco | |
|
Estate | |
|
and Other | |
|
Total | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
2004
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Revenues
|
|
$ |
484,898 |
|
|
$ |
13,962 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
498,860 |
|
Operating income (loss)
|
|
|
110,675 |
(1) |
|
|
(64,942 |
)(1) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(30,286 |
) |
|
|
15,447 |
(1) |
Identifiable assets
|
|
|
278,846 |
|
|
|
5,977 |
|
|
|
82,087 |
(4) |
|
|
168,985 |
|
|
|
535,895 |
|
Depreciation and amortization
|
|
|
7,889 |
|
|
|
1,679 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,255 |
|
|
|
11,823 |
|
Capital expenditures
|
|
|
4,132 |
|
|
|
125 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
37 |
|
|
|
4,294 |
|
2003
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Revenues
|
|
$ |
503,231 |
|
|
$ |
26,154 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
529,385 |
|
Operating income (loss)
|
|
|
119,749 |
|
|
|
(92,825 |
)(2) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(26,434 |
) |
|
|
490 |
(2) |
Identifiable assets
|
|
|
304,155 |
|
|
|
76,718 |
|
|
|
74,594 |
(4) |
|
|
172,745 |
|
|
|
628,212 |
|
Depreciation and amortization
|
|
|
7,106 |
|
|
|
4,927 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,695 |
|
|
|
14,728 |
|
Capital expenditures
|
|
|
5,644 |
|
|
|
2,296 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
954 |
|
|
|
8,894 |
|
2002
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Revenues
|
|
$ |
494,975 |
|
|
$ |
7,442 |
|
|
$ |
661 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
503,078 |
|
Operating income (loss)
|
|
|
102,718 |
(3) |
|
|
(88,159 |
) |
|
|
(763 |
) |
|
|
(32,688 |
) |
|
|
(18,892 |
)(3) |
Identifiable assets
|
|
|
274,667 |
|
|
|
92,529 |
|
|
|
62,755 |
(4) |
|
|
277,319 |
|
|
|
707,270 |
|
Depreciation and amortization
|
|
|
5,634 |
|
|
|
5,166 |
|
|
|
191 |
|
|
|
2,818 |
|
|
|
13,809 |
|
Capital expenditures
|
|
|
19,078 |
|
|
|
16,863 |
|
|
|
687 |
|
|
|
5,750 |
|
|
|
42,378 |
|
|
|
(1) |
Includes restructuring and impairment charges of $11,075 at
Liggett and $2,624 at Vector Tobacco and a $37,000 inventory
impairment charge at Vector Tobacco in 2004. |
(2) |
Includes restructuring charges of $21,300 in 2003. |
(3) |
Includes restructuring charges of $3,460 in 2002. |
(4) |
Identifiable assets in the real estate segment include $54,927,
$55,876 and $54,947 in 2004, 2003 and 2002, respectively, of
assets attributable to discontinued real estate operations. |
F-56
VECTOR GROUP LTD.
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(Dollars in Thousands, Except Per Share
Amounts) (Continued)
|
|
22. |
QUARTERLY FINANCIAL RESULTS (UNAUDITED) |
Quarterly data for the year ended December 31, 2004 and
2003 are as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31, | |
|
September 30, | |
|
June 30, | |
|
March 31, | |
|
|
2004(1) | |
|
2004 | |
|
2004 | |
|
2004 | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
Revenues
|
|
$ |
127,991 |
|
|
$ |
124,251 |
|
|
$ |
120,045 |
|
|
$ |
126,573 |
|
Operating income (loss)
|
|
|
11,790 |
|
|
|
16,715 |
|
|
|
(25,899 |
) |
|
|
12,841 |
|
Income (loss) from continuing operations
|
|
|
8,627 |
|
|
|
7,954 |
|
|
|
(17,035 |
) |
|
|
4,493 |
|
Income from discontinued operations
|
|
|
2,310 |
|
|
|
112 |
|
|
|
133 |
|
|
|
134 |
|
Net income (loss) applicable to common shares
|
|
$ |
10,937 |
|
|
$ |
8,066 |
|
|
$ |
(16,902 |
) |
|
$ |
4,627 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Per basic common share(2):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income (loss) from continuing operations
|
|
$ |
0.21 |
|
|
$ |
0.19 |
|
|
$ |
(0.42 |
) |
|
$ |
0.10 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income from discontinued operations
|
|
$ |
0.05 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
0.01 |
|
|
$ |
0.01 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income (loss) applicable to common shares
|
|
$ |
0.26 |
|
|
$ |
0.19 |
|
|
$ |
(0.41 |
) |
|
$ |
0.11 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Per diluted common share(2):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income (loss) from continuing operations
|
|
$ |
0.20 |
|
|
$ |
0.19 |
|
|
$ |
(0.42 |
) |
|
$ |
0.10 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income from discontinued operations
|
|
$ |
0.05 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
0.01 |
|
|
$ |
0.01 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income (loss) applicable to common shares
|
|
$ |
0.25 |
|
|
$ |
0.19 |
|
|
$ |
(0.41 |
) |
|
$ |
0.11 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
Fourth quarter 2004 income from continuing operations included
$6,155 restructuring charge related to Liggett Vector Brands,
$4,177 charge (net of minority interests) for settlement of
shareholder derivative suit and $4,694 loss on extinguishment of
debt related to retirement of VGR Holdings senior secured
notes. Fourth quarter 2004 income from discontinued operations
included $2,231 gain, net of taxes and minority interests, from
the reversal of tax and bankruptcy accruals previously
established by New Valley following resolution of these matters. |
(2) |
Per share computations include the impact of a 5% stock dividend
paid on September 29, 2004. Quarterly basic and diluted net
income (loss) per common share were computed independently for
each quarter and do not necessarily total to the year to date
basic and diluted net income (loss) per common share. |
F-57
VECTOR GROUP LTD.
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(Dollars in Thousands, Except Per Share
Amounts) (Continued)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31, | |
|
September 30, | |
|
June 30, | |
|
March 31, | |
|
|
2003 | |
|
2003 | |
|
2003 | |
|
2003 | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
Revenues
|
|
$ |
127,589 |
|
|
$ |
141,053 |
|
|
$ |
129,400 |
|
|
$ |
131,343 |
|
Operating income (loss)
|
|
|
11,041 |
|
|
|
(9,266 |
) |
|
|
(159 |
) |
|
|
(1,126 |
) |
Income (loss) from continuing operations
|
|
|
3,428 |
|
|
|
(9,516 |
) |
|
|
(5,077 |
) |
|
|
(4,967 |
) |
Income from discontinued operations
|
|
|
121 |
|
|
|
136 |
|
|
|
147 |
|
|
|
118 |
|
Net income (loss) applicable to common shares
|
|
$ |
3,549 |
|
|
$ |
(9,380 |
) |
|
$ |
(4,930 |
) |
|
$ |
(4,849 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
*Per basic common share:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income (loss) from continuing operations
|
|
$ |
0.08 |
|
|
$ |
(0.24 |
) |
|
$ |
(0.13 |
) |
|
$ |
(0.13 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income from discontinued operations
|
|
$ |
0.01 |
|
|
$ |
0.01 |
|
|
$ |
0.01 |
|
|
$ |
0.01 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income (loss) applicable to common shares
|
|
$ |
0.09 |
|
|
$ |
(0.23 |
) |
|
$ |
(0.12 |
) |
|
$ |
(0.12 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
*Per diluted common share:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income (loss) from continuing operations
|
|
$ |
0.08 |
|
|
$ |
(0.24 |
) |
|
$ |
(0.13 |
) |
|
$ |
(0.13 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income from discontinued operations
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
0.01 |
|
|
$ |
0.01 |
|
|
$ |
0.01 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income (loss) applicable to common shares
|
|
$ |
0.08 |
|
|
$ |
(0.23 |
) |
|
$ |
(0.12 |
) |
|
$ |
(0.12 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* |
Per share computations include the impact of a 5% stock dividend
paid on September 29, 2003. Quarterly basic and diluted net
income (loss) per common share were computed independently for
each quarter and do not necessarily total to the year to date
basic and diluted net income (loss) per common share. |
F-58
VECTOR GROUP LTD.
SCHEDULE II VALUATION AND QUALIFYING
ACCOUNTS
(Dollars in Thousands)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Additions | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance at | |
|
Charged to | |
|
|
|
Balance at | |
|
|
Beginning | |
|
Costs and | |
|
|
|
End of | |
Description |
|
of Period | |
|
Expenses | |
|
Deductions | |
|
Period | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
Year ended December 31, 2004
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Allowances for:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Doubtful accounts
|
|
$ |
350 |
|
|
$ |
18 |
|
|
$ |
163 |
|
|
$ |
205 |
|
|
Cash discounts
|
|
|
396 |
|
|
|
23,554 |
|
|
|
23,843 |
|
|
|
107 |
|
|
Deferred tax valuation allowance
|
|
|
95,374 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
12,244 |
|
|
|
83,130 |
|
|
Sales returns
|
|
|
8,472 |
|
|
|
55 |
|
|
|
2,497 |
|
|
|
6,030 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$ |
104,592 |
|
|
$ |
23,627 |
|
|
$ |
38,747 |
|
|
$ |
89,472 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year ended December 31, 2003
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Allowances for:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Doubtful accounts
|
|
$ |
1,499 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
1,149 |
|
|
$ |
350 |
|
|
Cash discounts
|
|
|
749 |
|
|
|
29,373 |
|
|
|
29,726 |
|
|
|
396 |
|
|
Deferred tax valuation allowance
|
|
|
97,305 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,931 |
|
|
|
95,374 |
|
|
Sales returns
|
|
|
8,947 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
475 |
|
|
|
8,472 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$ |
108,500 |
|
|
$ |
29,373 |
|
|
$ |
33,281 |
|
|
$ |
104,592 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year ended December 31, 2002
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Allowances for:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Doubtful accounts
|
|
$ |
238 |
|
|
$ |
1,627 |
|
|
$ |
366 |
|
|
$ |
1,499 |
|
|
Cash discounts
|
|
|
1,863 |
|
|
|
29,740 |
|
|
|
30,854 |
|
|
|
749 |
|
|
Deferred tax valuation allowance
|
|
|
92,469 |
|
|
|
6,771 |
|
|
|
1,935 |
|
|
|
97,305 |
|
|
Sales returns
|
|
|
3,894 |
|
|
|
5,053 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
8,947 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$ |
98,464 |
|
|
$ |
43,191 |
|
|
$ |
33,155 |
|
|
$ |
108,500 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
F-59
SCHEDULE III
VECTOR GROUP LTD.
REAL ESTATE AND ACCUMULATED DEPRECIATION
As of December 31, 2004
(Amounts in thousands)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gross Amount Carried | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
At Close of Period | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cost |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Initial Cost | |
|
Capitalized |
|
|
|
Buildings | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Description |
|
|
|
| |
|
Net of |
|
|
|
and | |
|
|
|
Accumulated | |
|
Date | |
|
Date | |
|
Depreciable | |
And Location |
|
Encumbrances | |
|
Land | |
|
Building | |
|
Deletions |
|
Land | |
|
Improvements | |
|
Total | |
|
Depreciation | |
|
Constructed | |
|
Acquired | |
|
Life | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
Office Buildings:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
100 College Road West
|
|
$ |
26,784 |
|
|
$ |
5,219 |
|
|
$ |
31,842 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
5,219 |
|
|
$ |
31,842 |
|
|
$ |
37,061 |
|
|
$ |
1,667 |
|
|
|
2000 |
|
|
|
Dec 2002 |
|
|
|
39 |
|
|
150 College Road West
|
|
|
12,429 |
|
|
|
2,417 |
|
|
|
14,780 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,417 |
|
|
|
14,780 |
|
|
|
17,197 |
|
|
|
774 |
|
|
|
2001 |
|
|
|
Dec 2002 |
|
|
|
39 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$ |
39,213 |
|
|
$ |
7,636 |
|
|
$ |
46,622 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
7,636 |
|
|
$ |
46,622 |
|
|
$ |
54,258 |
|
|
$ |
2,441 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
F-60
SCHEDULE III
VECTOR GROUP LTD.
REAL ESTATE AND ACCUMULATED DEPRECIATION
For the three years ended December 31, 2004
(Amounts in thousands)
Reconciliation of Carrying Costs and Accumulated
Deprecation
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Buildings and | |
|
|
|
Accumulated | |
|
|
Land | |
|
Improvements | |
|
Total | |
|
Depreciation | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
Balance at January 1, 2002
|
|
$ |
39,937 |
|
|
$ |
11,198 |
|
|
$ |
51,135 |
|
|
$ |
2,148 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Additions during period:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other acquisitions
|
|
|
7,636 |
|
|
|
46,622 |
|
|
|
54,258 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Improvements, etc
|
|
|
687 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
687 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reclassifications
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Depreciation expense
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,123 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Additions
|
|
|
8,323 |
|
|
|
46,622 |
|
|
|
54,945 |
|
|
|
2,123 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Deductions during period:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cost of real estate sold
|
|
|
40,624 |
|
|
|
11,198 |
|
|
|
51,822 |
|
|
|
4,221 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance at December 31, 2002
|
|
$ |
7,636 |
|
|
$ |
46,622 |
|
|
$ |
54,258 |
|
|
$ |
50 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Additions during period:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other acquisitions
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Improvements, etc
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reclassifications
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Depreciation expense
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,196 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Additions
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,196 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Deductions during period:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cost of real estate sold
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance at December 31, 2003
|
|
$ |
7,636 |
|
|
$ |
46,622 |
|
|
$ |
54,258 |
|
|
$ |
1,246 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Additions during period:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other acquisitions
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Improvements, etc
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reclassifications
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Depreciation expense
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,195 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Additions
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,195 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Deductions during period:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cost of real estate sold
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance at December 31, 2004
|
|
$ |
7,636 |
|
|
$ |
46,622 |
|
|
$ |
54,258 |
|
|
$ |
2,441 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
F-61
Subsidiaries of Vector
EXHIBIT 21
SUBSIDIARIES OF THE COMPANY
The following is a list of our active subsidiaries as of December 31, 2004, including the
jurisdiction of incorporation of each and the names under which such subsidiaries conduct business.
In the case of each subsidiary which is indented, its immediate parent owns beneficially all of
the voting securities, except New Valley Corporation of which VGR Holding Inc. and New Valley
Holdings, Inc. collectively owned approximately 58% of such voting securities.
|
|
|
VGR Holding Inc. |
|
Delaware |
Brooke Group Holding Inc. |
|
Delaware |
Liggett Group Inc. |
|
Delaware |
New Valley Holdings, Inc. |
|
Delaware |
New Valley Corporation |
|
Delaware |
Vector Tobacco Inc. |
|
Delaware |
Liggett Vector Brands Inc. |
|
Delaware |
Not included above are other subsidiaries which, if considered in the aggregate as a single
subsidiary, would not constitute a significant subsidiary, as such term is defined by Rule 1-02(w)
of Regulation S-X.
Consent of PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
EXHIBIT 23
CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM
We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8
(Nos. 333-59210, 333-71596 and 333-118113) and on Form S-3 (Nos. 333-46055, 33-38869, 333-45377,
333-56873, 333-62156, 333-69294, 333-82212, 333-121502 and 333-121504) of Vector Group Ltd. of our
report dated March 24, 2005 relating to the financial
statements, financial statement schedules, managements assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting and the
effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, which appears in this Form 10-K.
/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
Miami, Florida
March 24, 2005
Section 302 CEO Certification
EXHIBIT 31.1
RULE 13a-14(a) CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE
OFFICER
I, Bennett S. LeBow, certify that:
|
|
|
|
1. |
I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Vector
Group Ltd.; |
|
|
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 registrants other certifying officer 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 registrants 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 registrants
internal control over financial reporting that occurred during
the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the
registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual
report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
materially affect, the registrants internal control over
financial reporting; and |
|
|
|
|
5. |
The registrants other certifying officer and I have
disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal
control over financial reporting, to the registrants
auditors and the audit committee of registrants 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
registrants 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
registrants internal control over financial reporting. |
Date: March 24, 2005
|
|
|
/s/ Bennett S. LeBow
|
|
|
|
Bennett S. LeBow |
|
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer |
Section 302 CFO Certification
EXHIBIT 31.2
RULE 13a-14(a) CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL
OFFICER
I, Joselynn D. Van Siclen, certify that:
|
|
|
|
1. |
I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Vector
Group Ltd.; |
|
|
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 registrants other certifying officer 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 registrants 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 registrants
internal control over financial reporting that occurred during
the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the
registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual
report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
materially affect, the registrants internal control over
financial reporting; and |
|
|
|
|
5. |
The registrants other certifying officer and I have
disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal
control over financial reporting, to the registrants
auditors and the audit committee of registrants board of
directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): |
|
|
|
|
(c) |
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
registrants ability to record, process, summarize and
report financial information; and |
|
|
(d) |
any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or
other employees who have a significant role in the
registrants internal control over financial reporting. |
Date: March 24, 2005
|
|
|
/s/ Joselynn D. Van Siclen
|
|
|
|
Joselynn D. Van Siclen |
|
Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |
Section 906 CEO Certification
EXHIBIT 32.1
SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
In connection with the Annual Report of Vector Group Ltd. (the
Company) on Form 10-K for the year ended
December 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I,
Bennett S. LeBow, Chief Executive Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002, that, to my knowledge:
|
|
|
|
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. |
March 24, 2005
|
|
|
/s/ Bennett S. LeBow
|
|
|
|
Bennett S. LeBow |
|
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer |
Section 906 CFO Certification
EXHIBIT 32.2
SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
In connection with the Annual Report of Vector Group Ltd. (the
Company) on Form 10-K for the year ended
December 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I,
Joselynn D. Van Siclen, Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002, that, to my knowledge:
|
|
|
|
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. |
March 24, 2005
|
|
|
/s/ Joselynn D. Van Siclen
|
|
|
|
Joselynn D. Van Siclen |
|
Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |
Material Legal Proceedings
Exhibit 99.1
I. GOVERNMENTAL HEALTH CARE RECOVERY ACTIONS
|
|
|
United States of America v. Philip Morris, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:99CVO2496, USDC,
District of Columbia (case filed 9/22/99). The United States of America seeks to recover
the proceeds received, and to be received, by tobacco company defendants and certain
affiliates for wrongful sales of tobacco products. In October 2000, the District Court
dismissed the governments claims pursuant to the Medicare Secondary Payor Act and the
Medical Cost Recovery Act, but denied motions to dismiss RICO claims. In February 2005, the
United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled that disgorgement is not
an available remedy. The government has stated it intends to appeal. This action is
currently at trial. See Note 15, Contingencies, for a more detailed discussion of the case. |
|
|
|
County of Cook v. Philip Morris, et al., Case No. 97L04550, Circuit Court, State of
Illinois, Cook County (case filed 7/21/97). County of Cook seeks to obtain declaratory and
equitable relief and restitution as well as to recover money damages resulting from payment
by the County for tobacco-related medical treatment for its citizens and health insurance
for its employees. Appellate Court affirmed dismissal on September 28, 2004; Petition to
appeal with Illinois Supreme Court. |
|
|
|
County of McHenry, et al. v. Philip Morris, Inc., et al., Case No. 00L 007949,
Circuit Court, Illinois, Cook County (case filed 7/13/00). County of McHenry seeks monetary
damages, civil penalties, declaratory and injunctive relief, restitution, and disgorgement
of profits. Action stayed pending outcome of appeal in County of Cook. |
|
|
|
General Sick Fund (Kupat Holim Clalit) v. Philip Morris, Inc., et al., Case No.
1571/98, District Court, Israel, Jerusalem (case filed 9/28/98). General Sick Fund seeks
monetary damages and declaratory and injunctive relief on behalf of itself and all of its
members. |
|
|
|
Republic of Panama v. The American Tobacco Company, Inc., et al., Case No. 98-17752,
Civil District Court, State of Louisiana, Orleans Parish (case filed 10/20/98). The
Republic of Panama seeks compensatory and injunctive relief for damages incurred by the
Republic in paying for the Medicaid expenses of indigent smokers. Transferred to the
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation in the United States District Court of the
District of Columbia on 11/6/00. |
|
|
|
The State of Sao Paulo v. The American Tobacco Company, et al., Case No. 20
00-02058, Civil District Court, Louisiana, Parish of Orleans (case filed 2/9/00). The State
of Sao Paulo seeks reimbursement of the funds expanded on behalf of those injured by and
addicted to defendants tobacco products. |
|
|
|
County of Wayne v. Philip Morris Incorporated, et al., USDC, Eastern District,
Michigan. County of Wayne seeks to obtain damages, remediation through tobacco education
and anti-addiction programs, injunctive relief, attorneys fees and costs. |
|
|
|
City of St. Louis, et al. v. American Tobacco Company, Inc., et al., Case No.
CV-982-09652, Circuit Court, State of Missouri, City of St. Louis (case filed 12/4/98).
City of St. Louis and area hospitals seek to recover past and future costs expended to
provide healthcare to Medicaid, medically indigent, and non-paying patients suffering from
tobacco-related illnesses. Trial is slated to commence in January 2006. |
|
|
|
County of St. Louis, Missouri v. American Tobacco Company, Inc., et al., Case No.
982-09705, Circuit Court, State of Missouri, City of St. Louis (case filed 12/10/98).
County seeks to recover costs from providing healthcare services to Medicaid and indigent
patients, as part of the State of Missouri terms as a party to the Master Settlement
Agreement. |
|
|
|
The Crow Creek Sioux Tribe v. The American Tobacco Company, et al., Case No. CV
97-09-082, Tribal Court of The Crow Creek Sioux Tribe, State of South Dakota (case filed
9/26/97). Indian tribe seeks equitable and injunctive relief for damages incurred by the
tribe in paying for the expenses of indigent smokers. |
|
|
|
Republic of Bolivia v. Philip Morris Companies, Inc., et al., Case No. 6949*JG99,
District Court, State of Texas, Brazoria County, State of Texas (case filed 1/20/99). The
Republic of Bolivia seeks compensatory and injunctive relief for damages incurred by the
Republic in paying for the Medicaid expenses of indigent smokers. |
|
|
|
The State of Rio de Janerio of The Federated Republic of Brazil v. Philip Morris
Companies, Inc., et al., Case No. CV-32198, District of Angelina County, State of Texas
(case filed 7/12/99). The State of Rio de Janerio of The Federated Republic of Brazil seeks
compensatory and injunctive relief for damages incurred by the Republic in paying for the
Medicaid expenses of indigent smokers. |
II. THIRD-PARTY PAYOR ACTIONS
|
|
|
Fibreboard Corporation, et al. v. The American Tobacco Company, et al., Case No.
791919-8, Superior Court of California, County of Alameda (case filed 11/10/97). Asbestos
company seeks reimbursement for damages paid to asbestos victims for medical and other
relief, which damages allegedly are attributable to the tobacco companies. |
|
|
|
Glover, et al. v. Philip Morris USA, et al., Case No. 3:04-CV-403-J-16 MMH,, USDC,
Middle District of Florida (case filed 5/26/04). Plaintiffs are seeking to recover for the
Medicare program all the expenditures it made from May, 26, 1998 to the present for the
healthcare services received by Medicare beneficiaries for the treatment of certain tobacco
related diseases. |
|
|
|
Central Illinois Laborers Health & Welfare Trust Fund, et al. v. Philip Morris, et
al., Case No. 97-L516, USDC, Southern District of Illinois (case filed 5/22/97). Health
and Welfare Trust Fund seeks injunctive relief and economic reimbursement to recover |
-2-
|
|
|
moneys expended by Fund to provide medical treatment to its participants and beneficiaries
suffering from smoking-related illnesses. |
|
|
|
Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Corporation, et al v. RJR Nabisco, et al., Case No.
2000-615, Circuit Court of Mississippi, Jefferson County (case filed 12/15/00). Asbestos
company seeks reimbursement for damages paid to asbestos victims for medical and other
relief, which damages allegedly are attributable to the tobacco companies. |
|
|
|
Blue Cross and Blue Shield of New Jersey, et al. v. Philip Morris Inc., et al., Case
No. 98-3287, New York, Eastern District. Action brought on behalf of twenty-four Blue
Cross/Blue Shield insurers seeking to recover health care costs attributable to smoking.
Judgment has been entered on a jury verdict and award of attorneys fees in favor of one
plan, Empire Blue Cross and Blue Shield. The case has been appealed to the United States
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. In September 2003, the Second Circuit rendered a
decision which, among other things, certified certain legal questions concerning that appeal
to the Court of Appeals of the State of New York, which agreed to review the certified
questions. The Court of Appeals of the State of New York rendered a decision in October
2004. In December 2004, the Second Circuit vacated the award of compensatory damages and
attorneys fees. In February 2005, the parties stipulated to a dismissal with prejudice.
See Note 15, Contingencies, for a more detailed discussion of the case. |
III. SLAVERY REPARATIONS
|
|
|
Johnson, et al. v. Aetna , Inc., et al., Case No. 02-2712, USDC, Louisiana, Eastern
District. This class action is brought on behalf of all African American slave descendants
for slavery reparations. |
|
|
|
Bankhead, et al. v. Lloyds of London, et al., Case No. 05 CV 6966, USDC, Southern
District of New York (case filed 9/3/02). This class action is brought on behalf of all
African American slave descendants for slavery reparations. |
|
|
|
Timothy Hurdle v. Fleet Boston Financial, et al., Case No. 02-02653, USD, Northern
District of California (case filed 09/10/02). This class action is brought on behalf of all
African American slave descendants for slavery reparations. |
IV. CLASS ACTION CASES
|
|
|
Jefferson County, et al. v. Philip Morris, Inc., et al., Case No. CV 02-6170,
Circuit Court, Jefferson County, Alabama (case filed 10/10/02). This action is for
injunctive relief and damages. Plaintiffs allege a class action against the tobacco
defendants for their smoking related medical expenses unpaid by Medicaid. |
-3-
|
|
|
Brown, et al. v. The American Tobacco Company, et al., Case No. 711400, Superior
Court of California, County of San Diego (case filed 10/1/97). This personal injury class
action is brought on behalf of plaintiff and all similarly situated allegedly injured
smokers resident in California. In April 2001, the court granted in part plaintiffs motion
for class certification. In March 2005, the court issued a ruling granting defendants
summary judgment motion to decertify the class. See Note 15, Contingencies, for a more
detailed discussion of this case. |
|
|
|
Sims, et al. v. Philip Morris, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:01CV01107, USDC, District of
Columbia (case filed 5/23/01). Plaintiffs bring this class action to recover the purchase
price paid by plaintiffs and class members while they were under age through the use of
fraud, deception, misrepresentation and other activities constituting racketeering, in
violation of federal law. |
|
|
|
Engle, et al. v. R.J. Reynolds, et al., Case No. 94-08273 CA 20, Circuit Court,
Florida, Dade County (case filed 5/5/94). This personal injury class action is brought on
behalf of plaintiff and all similarly situated allegedly injured smokers resident in
Florida. The case was certified as a class action in October 1994. Trial commenced in July
1998. A judgment for compensatory and punitive damages was entered in November 2000. The
judgment was reversed by the intermediate appellate court in May 2003. The Florida Supreme
Court accepted the case for appeal and oral argument was held in November 2004. See Note 15,
Contingencies, for a more detailed discussion of this case. |
|
|
|
Cleary, et al. v. Philip Morris, Inc., et al., Case No. 98 L06427, Circuit Court of
the State of Illinois, Cook County (case filed 6/11/98). This personal injury class action
is brought on behalf of plaintiff and all similarly situated smokers resident in Illinois. |
|
|
|
Young, et al. v. The American Tobacco Company, et al., Case No. 2:97-CV-03851, Civil
District Court, State of Louisiana, Orleans Parish (case filed 11/12/97). This personal
injury class action is brought on behalf of plaintiff and all similarly situated allegedly
injured smokers resident in Louisiana. |
|
|
|
Richardson, et al. v. Philip Morris, et al., Case No. 96145050/CL212596, Circuit
Court, Baltimore City, Maryland (case filed on 5/29/96). This addiction-as-injury
putative class action is brought on behalf of plaintiff and all similarly situated allegedly
addicted smokers resident in Maryland. |
|
|
|
Owens Illinois, Inc. v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, et al., Case No. 2000-0077,
Circuit Court, Mississippi, Sharkey County (case filed 4/9/01). There are no individual
plaintiffs in this case, and while it may be dismissed, it is currently active. |
|
|
|
Schwab, et al. v. Philip Morris USA, Inc., et al., Case No. CV-04 1945, USDC,
Eastern District of New York (case filed 5/11/04). This personal injury action is brought
on behalf of plaintiffs and all others similarly situated under the RICO act challenging
the practices of defendants in connection with the marketing, advertising, promotion,
distribution and sale of light cigarettes in comparison to regular cigarettes delivering |
-4-
|
|
|
lower levels of tar and/ or nicotine. Plaintiff seeks certification of a nationwide class.
Trial in the case is scheduled for November 2005. |
|
|
|
Simon, et al. v. Philip Morris Inc, et al., Case No CV 99 1988, USDC, Eastern
District of New York (case filed 4/9/99). This personal injury action is brought on behalf
of plaintiffs seeking certification of a nationwide class under the applicable provisions of
Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, on behalf of persons who have smoked
defendants cigarettes and who presently have a claim for personal injuries or damages, or
wrongful death, arising from the smoking of defendants cigarettes. |
|
|
|
In Re Simon (II) Litigation, Case No 00-CV-5332, USDC, Eastern District of New York
(case filed 9/6/2000). This action consolidates claims of ten other individual and class
action personal injury tobacco cases, and is brought on behalf of plaintiffs seeking
certification of a nationwide class under the applicable provisions of Rule 23 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. In September 2002, the court granted plaintiffs motion
for certification of a nationwide punitive damages class. Defendants have taken an appeal
of the class certification order to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit. See Note 15, Contingencies, for a more detailed discussion of this case.
(Consolidated Cases: 99-CV-1988, 00-CV-2340, 00-CV-4632, 00-CV-4442, 98-CV-1492, 99-CV-6142,
98-CV-3287, 98-CV-7658, 98-CV-0675, 99-CV-7392) |
|
|
|
Creekmore, et al. v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corporation, et al., Case No. 98 CV
03403, Superior Court of North Carolina, Buncombe County (case filed 11/19/98). This
personal injury class action is brought on behalf of plaintiffs and all similarly situated
allegedly injured smokers resident in North Carolina. |
|
|
|
Jackson, et al. v. Philip Morris, Inc., et al., Case No. 980901634PI, 3rd Judicial
Court of Utah, Salt Lake County (case filed 3/10/98). This addiction-as-injury class
action is brought on behalf of plaintiff and all similarly situated allegedly injured
smokers resident in Utah. |
|
|
|
Martinez, et al. v. Philip Morris Incorporated, et al., Case No. 030900239, 3rd
Judicial Court of Utah, Salt Lake County (case filed 01/07/03). This addiction-as-injury
class action is brought on behalf of plaintiff and all similarly situated allegedly injured
smokers resident in Utah. |
|
|
|
Ingle, et al. v. Philip Morris, et al., Case No. 97-C-21-S, Circuit Court, State of
West Virginia, McDowell County (case filed 2/4/97). This personal injury putative class
action is brought on behalf of plaintiff and all similarly situated allegedly injured
smokers resident in West Virginia. |
|
|
|
In Re Tobacco MM (6000) (Blankenship), Case No. 00-C-6000, Circuit Court, West
Virginia, Ohio County. Class action seeking payments for costs of medical monitoring for
current and former smokers. Liggett was severed from trial of other tobacco company
defendants. Judgment upon jury verdict in favor of other tobacco company defendants was
affirmed by the West Virginia Supreme Court in May 2004. |
-5-
|
|
|
McCune v. The American Tobacco Company, et al., Case No. 97-C-204, Circuit Court,
State of West Virginia, Kanawha County (case filed 1/31/97). This addiction-as-injury
putative class action is brought on behalf of plaintiff and all similarly situated allegedly
addicted smokers resident in West Virginia. |
|
|
|
Parsons, et al. v. Liggett Group Inc., et al., Case No. 98-C-388, Circuit Court,
State of West Virginia, Kanawha County (case filed 4/9/98). This personal injury class
action is brought on behalf of plaintiffs decedent and all West Virginia residents having
claims for personal injury arising from exposure to both cigarette smoke and asbestos
fibers. |
V. INDIVIDUAL SMOKER CASES
|
|
|
Campbell, Willie et al. v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corporation et al., Case No.
CV-02-184-MJ-C, USDC, Southern District, Alabama. Three individuals suing. |
|
|
|
Adams, Dixie, et al . v. American Tobacco Co, Inc., et al., Case No. GC 030373,
Superior Court, Los Angeles County, California. Three individuals suing. |
|
|
|
Brown V., et al. v. The American Tobacco Company, et al., Case No. 00AS02085,
Superior Court, Sacramento County, California (case filed 4/18/00). Two individuals suing. |
|
|
|
Donaldson, et al. v. Raybestos Manhattan, Inc., et al., Case No.998147, Superior
Court of California, County of San Francisco (case filed 9/25/98). Two individuals suing. |
|
|
|
Thomas, Albert v. The Tobacco Research Committee, et al., Case No. 1:04CV02094,
USDC, District Court of Columbia (case filed 12/3/04). One individual suing (Pro Se) |
|
|
|
Christensen, et al. v. Philip Morris Incorporated, et al., Case No. 02136, Court of
Special Appeals, District of Columbia (case filed 9/03). Two individuals suing. |
|
|
|
Plummer, Brenda, et al. v. The American Tobacco., Case No. 6480, Superior Court,
District of Columbia. Three individuals suing. |
|
|
|
Armand v. Philip Morris, et al., Case No. 97-31179-CICI, Circuit Court of the
7th Judicial Circuit, Florida, Volusia County (case filed 7/9/97). Two
individuals suing. |
|
|
|
Arnold, James, et al. v. Brown & Williamson Corporation, et al., Case No. 04 00472,
Circuit Court of the 13th Judicial Circuit, Florida, Hillsborough County (case filed 01/16/04). One individuals suing. Abated pending resolution of
Engle. |
|
|
|
Atcheson v. R. J. Reynolds, et al., Case No. 97-31148-CICU, Circuit Court of the
7th Judicial Circuit, Florida, Volusia County (case filed 7/29/97). One
individual suing. |
-6-
|
|
|
Austin, W., v. R. J. Reynolds , et al., Case No. 05-00680, Circuit Court of the
13th Judicial Circuit, Florida, Hillsborough County. One individual suing. |
|
|
|
Bartley, et al. v. Brown & Williamson, et al., Case No. 97-11153, Circuit Court of
the 17th Judicial Circuit, Florida, Broward County (case filed 6/21/97). Two
individuals suing. |
|
|
|
Blair v. R. J. Reynolds, et al., Case No. 97-31177, Circuit Court of the
7th Judicial Circuit, Florida, Volusia County (case filed 7/29/97). One
individual suing. |
|
|
|
Blake, et al. v. R. J. Reynolds, et al., Case No. 01-13549, Circuit Court of the
11th Judicial Circuit, Florida, Miami-Dade County (case filed 6/7/01). Two
individuals suing. |
|
|
|
Blank v. Philip Morris, et al., Case No. 97-05443, Circuit Court of the
17th Judicial Circuit, Florida, Broward County (case filed 4/10/97). Two
individuals suing. |
|
|
|
Blum v. Philip Morris Incorporated, et al., Case No. 96005881, Circuit Court of the
11th Judicial Circuit, Florida, Miami-Dade County. One individual suing. |
|
|
|
Bradley, et al. v. American Tobacco, et al., Case No. 6:02-CV-01385, USDC, Middle
District, Florida. Two individuals. |
|
|
|
Britan, et al. v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, et al., Case No. 01-13451, County
Court of the 11th Judicial Circuit, Florida, Miami-Dade County. One individual
suing. |
|
|
|
Bronstein, et al. v. Brown & Williamson, et al., Case No. 97-008769, Circuit Court
of the 17th Judicial Circuit, Florida, Broward County (case filed 6/10/97). Two
individuals suing. |
|
|
|
Brown, Jackie v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, et al., Case No. 05-0790, Circuit
Court of the 13th Judicial Circuit, Florida, Hillsborough County. One
individual suing. |
|
|
|
Brown, S. , et al. v. Liggett Group Inc., et al., Case No. 03-18552 CA 04, Circuit
Court of the 11th Judicial Circuit, Florida, Miami-Dade County (case filed
08/11/03). Two individuals suing. |
|
|
|
Burns, et al. v. Liggett Group Inc., et al., Case No. 97-11175-27, Circuit Court of
the 17th Judicial Circuit, Florida, Broward County (case filed 4/3/98). One
individual suing. |
|
|
|
Cagle, et al. v. Brown & Williamson Corporation, et al., Case No. 02 10718,
13th Judicial Circuit, Florida, Hillsborough County (case filed 11/22/02). Two
individuals suing. Abated pending resolution of Engle. |
|
|
|
Calhoun, C., et al. v. Brown & Williamson Corporation, et al., Case No. 02-7970,
Circuit Court of the 13th Judicial Circuit, Florida, Hillsborough County (case
filed 8/27/02). Two individuals suing. Abated pending resolution of Engle. |
-7-
|
|
|
Ciccone, et al. v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corporation, et al., Case No. 0413258,
Circuit Court of the 17th Judicial Circuit, Florida, Broward County (case filed
8/19/04). One individual suing. |
|
|
|
Clark, Carol M. v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, et al., Case No. 02-16981,
Circuit Court of the 11th Judicial Circuit, Florida, Miami-Dade County, (case
filed 7/3/02). One individual suing. |
|
|
|
Coffey v. Brown & Williamson Corporation, et al., Case No. 01-09335, Circuit Court
of the 13th Judicial Circuit, Florida, Hillsborough County. One individual
suing. Abated pending resolution of Engle. |
|
|
|
Cotto, et al. v. Brown & Williamson Corporation, et al., Case No. 03-748, Circuit
Court of the 13th Judicial Circuit, Florida, Hillsborough County (case filed
1/22/03). Two individuals suing. Abated pending resolution of Engle. |
|
|
|
Colic, et al v. Brown & Williamson Corporation, et al., Case No. 03-10844, Circuit
Court of the 13th Judicial Circuit, Florida, Hillsborough County. One individual
suing. Abated pending resolution of Engle. |
|
|
|
Cowart v. Liggett Group Inc, et al., Case No.98-01483CA, Circuit Court of the
11th Judicial Circuit, Florida, Duval County (case filed 3/16/98). One
individual suing. |
|
|
|
Cox v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, et al., Case No. 05-00677, Circuit Court of
the 13th Judicial Circuit, Florida, Hillsborough County. One individual suing. |
|
|
|
Davis, et al. v. Liggett Group Inc., et al., Case No. 97-11145, Circuit Court of the
17th Judicial Circuit, Florida, Broward County (case filed 7/21/97). One
individual suing. |
|
|
|
Davis, Beverly, et al. v. Liggett Group Inc., et al., Case No. 02-48914, Circuit
Court of the 17th Judicial Circuit, Florida, Broward County (case filed 10/4/02).
Jury decision in April 2004 awarded compensatory damages of $540, 000 against Liggett. In
addition, plaintiffs counsel was awarded legal fees of $752,000. Liggett has appealed the
judgment. |
|
|
|
Davison, et al. v. Brown & Williamson, et al., Case No. 97008776, Circuit Court of
the 17th Judicial Circuit, Florida, Broward County (case filed 6/10/97). Two
individuals suing. |
|
|
|
De La Torre, et al. v. Brown & Williamson, et al., Case No. 97-11161, Circuit Court
of the 17th Judicial Circuit, Florida, Broward County (case filed 7/21/97). One
individual suing. |
|
|
|
Dill v. Philip Morris, et al., Case No. 97-05446, Circuit Court of the
17th Judicial Circuit, Florida, Broward County (case filed 4/10/97). One
individual suing. |
-8-
|
|
|
Ditslear v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, et al., Case No. 05-0899, Circuit Court
of the 13th Judicial Circuit, Florida, Hillsborough County. One individual
suing. |
|
|
|
Dougherty v. Philip Morris Inc., et al., Case No. 1999 32074 CICI, Circuit Court,
Florida, Volusia County (case filed 11/17/99). One individual suing. |
|
|
|
Duecker v. Liggett Group Inc., Case No. 98-03093 CA, Circuit Court of the
4th Judicial Circuit, Florida, Duval County (case filed 7/5/98). One individual
suing. Liggett is the only defendant. |
|
|
|
Ferlanti, et al. v. Liggett Group Inc., et al., Case No.0321697, Circuit Court of
the 17th Judicial Circuit, Florida, Broward County (case filed 12/11/03). Two
individuals suing. Liggett is the only defendant. The case is scheduled for trial in March
2005. |
|
|
|
Flaks, et al. v. Brown & Williamson, et al., Case No. 97-008750, Circuit Court of
the 17th Judicial Circuit, Florida, Broward County (case filed 6/10/97). Two
individuals suing. |
|
|
|
Fuchs v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, et al., Case No. 05-00681, Circuit Court of
the 13th Judicial Circuit, Florida, Hillsborough County. One individual suing. |
|
|
|
Garretson, et al. v. R.J. Reynolds, et al., Case No. 97-32441 CICI, Circuit Court of
the 7th Judicial Circuit, Florida, Volusia County (case filed 10/22/96). One
individual suing. |
|
|
|
Goldberg, et al. v. Liggett Group Inc., et al., Case No. 97-008780, Circuit Court of
the 17th Judicial Circuit, Florida, Broward County (case filed 6/10/97). Two
individuals suing. |
|
|
|
Grant, et al. v. Brown & Williamson Corporation, et al., Case No. 03-2673-Div. I,
Circuit Court of the 13th Judicial Circuit, Florida, Hillsborough County. One
individual suing.
Abated pending resolution of Engle. |
|
|
|
Gray, et al. v. The American tobacco Co., et al., Case No. 97-21657 CA 42, Circuit
Court of the 11th Judicial Circuit, Florida, Putnam County (case filed 10/15/97).
Two individuals suing. |
|
|
|
Guarch, et al. v. Philip Morris Incorporated, et al., Case No. 02-3308 CA 22,
Circuit Court of the 11th Judicial Circuit, Florida, Miami-Dade County (case
filed 2/5/02). Two individuals suing. |
|
|
|
Harris, et al. v. Brown & Williamson, et al., Case No. 97-1151, Circuit Court of the
17th Judicial Circuit, Florida, Broward County (case filed 7/21/97). Two
individuals suing. Abated pending resolution of Engle. |
|
|
|
Harris, Donald, et al. v. Brown & Williamson Corporation, et al., Case No. 02-8105,
13th Judicial Circuit, Florida, Hillsborough County. One individual suing. |
-9-
|
|
|
Hart, et al. v. Brown & Williamson, et al., Case No. 9708781, Circuit Court of the
17th Judicial Circuit, Florida, Broward County (case filed 6/10/97). One
individual suing. |
|
|
|
Hayes, et al. v. R.J. Reynolds, et al., Case No. 97-31007, Circuit Court of the
7th Judicial Circuit, Florida, Volusia County (case filed 6/30/97). Two
individuals suing. |
|
|
|
Hayhurst, et al. v. Liggett Group Inc., et al., Case No. 03-12302, Circuit Court of
the 17th Judicial Circuit, Florida, Broward County (case filed 7/14/03). Two individuals
suing. |
|
|
|
Hecker v. Brown & Williamson Corporation, et al., Case No. 03-9336, 13th
Judicial Circuit, Florida, Hillsborough County. One individual suing. Abated pending
resolution of Engle. |
|
|
|
Henin v. Philip Morris, et al., Case No. 97-29320 CA 05, Circuit Court of the
11th Judicial Circuit, Florida, Dade County (case filed 12/26/97). One
individual suing. |
|
|
|
Henning. et al. v. Brown & Williamson, et al., Case No. 97-11159, Circuit Court of
the 17th Judicial Circuit, Florida, Broward County (case filed 7/21/97). Two
individuals suing. |
|
|
|
Hitchens, et al. v. Brown & Williamson, et al., Case No.97008783, Circuit Court of
the 17th Judicial Circuit, Florida, Broward County (case filed 6/10/97). |
|
|
|
Jones, et al. v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, et al., Case No. 02-21922 CA 22,
Circuit Court of the 11th Judicial Circuit, Florida, Miami-Dade County (case
filed 08/29/02). Two individuals suing. |
|
|
|
Lappin v. R.J. Reynolds, et al., Case No. 97-31371 CICI, Circuit Court of the
7th Judicial Circuit, Florida, Volusia County (case filed 6/2/97). One
individual suing. |
|
|
|
Laschke, et al. v. R.J. Reynolds, et al., Case No. 96-8131-CI-008, Circuit Court of
the 6th Judicial Circuit, State of Florida, Pinellas County (case filed
12/20/96). Two individuals suing. Dismissal reversed on appeal. Remanded to the
6th Judicial Circuit. |
|
|
|
Levine v. R.J. Reynolds, et al., Case No. CL 95-98769 (AH), Circuit Court of the
15th Judicial Circuit, Florida, Palm Beach County (case filed 7/24/96). One
individual suing. |
|
|
|
Lobley v. Philip Morris, et al., Case No. 97-1033-CA-10-L, Circuit Court of the
18th Judicial Circuit, Florida, Seminole County (case filed 7/29/97). Two
individuals suing. |
|
|
|
Lukacs, John v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, et al., Circuit Court of the
11th Judicial Circuit Court, Florida, Miami-Dade County. One individual suing.
See Note 15, Contingencies, for a more detailed discussion of this case. |
-10-
|
|
|
Lustig, et al. v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Co., et al., Case No. 97 11168, Circuit
Court of the 17th Judicial Circuit, Florida, Broward County (case filed 7/21/97).
One individual suing. |
|
|
|
Magaldi, et al. v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, et al., Case No. 02-2120 CA 11,
Circuit court of the 11th Judicial Court, Florida, Miami-Dade County (case filed
8/21/02). Two individuals suing. |
|
|
|
Magliarisi, et al. v. Brown & Williamson, et al., Case No. 97008895, Circuit Court
of the 17 Judicial Circuit, Florida, Broward County (case filed 6/11/97). One individual
suing. |
|
|
|
Manley, et al. v. Liggett Group Inc., et al., Case No. 97-11173-27, Circuit Court of
the 17th Judicial Circuit, Florida, Broward County (case filed 4/3/98). Two
individuals suing. |
|
|
|
Martinez, et al. v. Liggett Group Inc., Case No. 02-20943-CA15, Circuit Court of the
11th Judicial Circuit, Florida, Miami-Dade County (case filed 10/14/02). One
individual suing. Liggett is the only defendant. The jury returned a defense verdict in
February 2005. The plaintiffs post-trial motion seeking a new trial is pending. |
|
|
|
McBride, et al. v. Brown & Williamson, et al., Case No. 02-0585, Circuit Court of
the 13th Judicial Circuit, Florida, Hillsborough County (case filed 6/4/02). One
individual suing. Abated pending resolution of Engle. |
|
|
|
McDonald, et al. v. Brown & Williamson, et al., Case No. 03-4767, Circuit Court of
the 13th Judicial Circuit, Florida, Hillsborough County (case filed 5/19/03).
One individual suing. Abated pending resolution of Engle. |
|
|
|
McInteer v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, et al., Case No. 05-00947, Circuit Court
of the 13th Judicial Circuit, Florida, Hillsborough County. One individual
suing. |
|
|
|
Meckler, et al. v. Brown & Williamson, et al., Case No. 97-03949-CA, Circuit Court
of the 4th Judicial Circuit, Florida, Duval County (case filed 7/10/97). One
individual suing. |
|
|
|
Mullin v. Philip Morris, et al., Case No. 95-15287 CA 15, Circuit Court of the
11th Judicial Circuit, Florida, Dade County (case filed 11/7/95). One individual
suing. |
|
|
|
ORourke v. Liggett Group Inc., et al., Case No. 97-31345-CICI, Circuit Court of the
7th Judicial Circuit, Florida, Volusia County (case filed 6/2/97). One
individual suing. |
|
|
|
Perez, et al. v. Brown & Williamson, et al., Case No. 96-1721-CIV-T-24B, USDC,
Middle District of Florida (case filed 8/20/96). One individual suing. |
|
|
|
Phillips v. R.J. Reynolds, et al., Case No. 97-31278, Circuit Court of the
7th Judicial Circuit, Florida, Volusia County (case filed 5/27/97). One
individual suing. |
-11-
|
|
|
Pipolo v. Philip Morris, et al., Case No. 97-05448, Circuit Court of the
17th Judicial Circuit, Florida, Broward County (case filed 4/10/97). Two
individuals suing. |
|
|
|
Quinn, et al. v. Brown & Williamson Corporation, et al., Case No. 03-4768, Circuit
Court of the 13th Judicial Circuit, Florida, Hillsborough County (case filed
5/19/03). One individual suing. Abated pending resolution of Engle. |
|
|
|
Rauch, et al. v. Brown & Williamson, et al., Case No. 97-11144, Circuit Court of the
17th Judicial Circuit, Florida, Broward County (case filed 7/21/97). Two
individuals suing. |
|
|
|
Rawls, et al. v. Liggett Group Inc., et al., Case No. 97-01354 CA, Circuit Court of
the 4th Judicial Circuit, Florida, Duval County (case filed 3/6/97). One individual suing. |
|
|
|
Rodriguez v. Philip Morris Incorporated, et al., Case No. 02-04912-CA-11, Circuit
Court, Florida, Miami-Dade County. One individual suing. |
|
|
|
Schultz v. Philip Morris Incorporated, et al., Case No. 99019898, Circuit Court of
the 17th Judicial Circuit, Florida, Broward County (case filed 11/24/99). One
individual suing. |
|
|
|
Schwartz, et al. v. Liggett Group Inc., et al., Case No. CA 030027078, Circuit Court
of the 15th Judicial Circuit, Florida, Palm Beach County (case filed 02/24/03).
Two individuals suing. Liggett is the only defendant. The case is scheduled for trial in
May 2005. |
|
|
|
Shaw, et al. v. Brown & Williamson, et al., Case No. 97-008755, Circuit Court of the
17th Judicial Circuit, Florida, Broward County (case filed 6/10/97). Two
individuals suing. |
|
|
|
Sheehan v. Brown & Williamson Corporation, et al., Case No. 01-9559, Circuit Court
of the 13th Judicial Circuit, Florida, Hillsborough County. One individual
suing. Abated pending resolution of Engle. |
|
|
|
Shirah, et al. v. Brown & Williamson Corporation, et al., Case No. 03-1589-Div. C,
Circuit Court of the 13th Judicial Circuit, Florida, Hillsborough County. Two
individual suing. Abated pending resolution of Engle. |
|
|
|
Spotts v. R.J. Reynolds, et al., Case No. 97-31373 CICI, Circuit Court of the
4th Judicial Circuit, Florida, Volusia County (case filed 9/16/97). One
individual suing. |
|
|
|
Stafford v. Brown & Williamson, et al., Case No. 97-7732-CI-019, Circuit Court of
the 6th Judicial Circuit, Florida, Pinellas County (case filed 11/14/97). One
individual suing. Abated pending resolution of Engle. |
|
|
|
Stewart, et al. v. R.J. Reynolds, et al., Case No. 97 2025 CA, Circuit Court of the
5th Judicial Circuit, Florida, Lake County (case filed 9/16/97). Two individuals suing. |
-12-
|
|
|
Strickland, et al. v. The American Tobacco Company, et al., Case No. 98-00764,
Circuit Court of the 11th Judicial Circuit, Florida, Dade County (case filed
1/8/98). Two individuals suing. |
|
|
|
Strohmetz v. Philip Morris, et al., Case No. 98-03787 CA, Circuit Court of the
4th Judicial Circuit, Florida, Duval County (case filed 7/16/98). One individual
suing. |
|
|
|
Swank-Reich v. Brown & Williamson, et al., Case No. 97008782, Circuit Court of the
17th Judicial Circuit, Florida, Broward County (case filed 6/10/97). One
individual suing. |
|
|
|
Thomson, Barry, v. R.J. Reynolds, et al., Case No. 97-400-CA, Circuit Court of the
7th Judicial Circuit, Florida, Flagler County (case filed 9/2/97). One
individual suing. |
|
|
|
Thomson, Eileen, et al. v. Brown & Williamson, et al., Case No. 97-11170, Circuit
Court of the 17th Judicial Circuit, Florida, Broward County (case filed 7/21/97).
One individual suing. |
|
|
|
Ventura v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., et al., Case No. 97-27024 CA (09), Circuit
Court of the 11th Judicial Circuit, Florida, Dade County (case filed 11/26/97).
One individual suing. |
|
|
|
Walker v. Brown & Williamson Corporation, et al., Case No. 03-8482, 13th Judicial
Circuit, Florida, Hillsborough County. (case filed 09/11/03). One individual suing.
Abated pending resolution of Engle. |
|
|
|
Ward v. Brown & Williamson Corporation, et al., Case No. 03-8480, 13th Judicial
Circuit, Florida, Hillsborough County. (case filed 09/11/03). One individual suing. Abated
pending resolution of Engle. |
|
|
|
Washington, et al. v. Philip Morris, et al., Case No. 97-10575 CIDL, Circuit Court
of the 7th Judicial Circuit, Florida, Volusia County (case filed 9/16/97). Two
individuals suing. |
|
|
|
Wells v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, et al., Case No. 02 21340 CA 30, Circuit
Court of the 11th Judicial Circuit, Florida, Miami-Dade County (case filed
8/22/02). One individual suing. |
|
|
|
Weiffenbach, et ux. v. Philip Morris, et al., Case No. 96-1690-CIV-T-24C, USDC,
Middle District of Florida (case filed 8/30/96). Two individuals suing. |
|
|
|
Wisch v. Liggett Group Inc., et al., Case No. 97-008759, Circuit Court of the 17th
Judicial Circuit, Florida, Broward County (case filed 6/10/97). One individual suing. |
|
|
|
Witt v. Brown & Williamson Corporation, et al., Case No. 04-8530, 13th Judicial
Circuit, Florida, Hillsborough County. One individual suing. |
-13-
|
|
|
Zarrella, et al. v. Liggett Group Inc., et al., Case No. 0313947, Circuit Court of
the 17th Judicial Circuit, Florida, Broward County (case filed 8/12/03). Two individuals
suing. |
|
|
|
Brown-Jones v. The American Tobacco Co., et al., Case No. 98-RCCV-28, Superior Court
of Georgia, Richmond County (case filed 1/13/98). Two individuals suing. |
|
|
|
Badon, et ux. v. RJR Nabisco Inc., et al., Case No. 10-13653, 38th
Judicial District, Louisiana, Cameron Parish (case filed 5/24/94). Six individuals suing. |
|
|
|
Dimm, et al. v. R.J. Reynolds, et al., Case No. 53919, 18th Judicial
District Court, Parish of Iberville, Louisiana. Seven individuals suing. |
|
|
|
Hunter, et al. v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, et al., Case No. 2002/18748m
District Court, Parish of Orleans, Louisiana. (12/4/2002) Two Individuals suing. |
|
|
|
Newsom, et al. v. R.J. Reynolds, et al., Case No. 105838, 16th Judicial
District Court, Parish of St. Mary, Louisiana (case filed 5/17/00). Five individuals suing. |
|
|
|
Oser v. The American Tobacco Co., et al., Case No. 97-9293, Civil District of the
Judicial District Court, State of Louisiana, Orleans Parish (case filed 5/27/97). One
individual suing. |
|
|
|
Racca, et al. v. R. J. Reynolds, et al., Case No. 10-14999, 38th Judicial
District Court, State of Louisiana, Cameron Parish (case filed 7/16/98). Eleven individuals
suing. |
|
|
|
Reese, et al. v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, et al., Case No. 2003-12761,
22nd Judicial District Court, Louisiana, St. Tammany (case filed 6/10/03). Five
individuals suing. |
|
|
|
Bateman, Perry v. A C and S Inc., et al., Case No. 24-X-02-001595, Circuit Court,
Maryland, Baltimore City. One individuals suing. |
|
|
|
Barbe, et al. v. A C and S Inc., et al., Case No. 24-X-02-001362, Circuit Court,
Maryland, Baltimore City (6/7/02). Two individuals suing. |
|
|
|
Becker, et al. v. A C and S Inc., et al., Case No. 24-X-99-002152, Circuit Court,
Maryland, Baltimore City (case filed 10/22/99). Two individuals suing. |
|
|
|
Bennett, et al. v. A C and S Inc., et al., Case No. 24-X-02-000192, Circuit Court,
Maryland, Baltimore City (case filed 1/25/02). Two individuals suing. |
|
|
|
Berkey v. Owens-Illinoid Glass Co., et al., Case No. 24-X-03-001009, Circuit Court,
Maryland, Baltimore City. One individual suing. |
-14-
|
|
|
Biedrzycki, et al. v. Owens Corning Fiberglas Corporation, et al., Case No.
24-X-98-149503, Circuit Court, Maryland, Baltimore City (case filed 5/29/98) . Two
individuals suing. |
|
|
|
Bisignani, et al. v. Owens Corning Fiberglas Corporation, et al., Case No.
24-X-97-010510, Circuit Court, Maryland, Baltimore City (case filed 1/10/97). Two
individuals suing. |
|
|
|
Boyd, et al. v. A C and S Inc., et al., Case No. 24-X-00-000305, Circuit Court,
Maryland, Baltimore City (case filed 4/21/00). Two individuals suing. |
|
|
|
Butta, Gloria, et al. v. Owens Illinois Glass Co., et al., Case No. 24-X-02-002559,
Circuit Court, Maryland, Baltimore City (case filed 11/22/02). Four individuals suing. |
|
|
|
Caravello, et al. v. A C and S Inc., et al., Case No. 24-X-95-15350, Circuit Court,
Maryland, Baltimore City. Two individuals suing. |
|
|
|
Carnes, et al. v. Owens Corning Fiberglass Corporation, et al., Case No.
24-X-98-028535, Circuit Court, Maryland, Baltimore City. Two individuals suing. |
|
|
|
Casper al. v. A C and S et al., Case No. 24-X-01-001604, Circuit Court, Maryland,
Baltimore City (case filed 10/22/01). Two individuals suing. |
|
|
|
Cavey , et al. v. Owens Corning Fiberglass Corporation, et al., Case No.
24-X-98-093530, Circuit Court, Maryland, Baltimore City. Two individuals suing. |
|
|
|
Citrano, et al. v. A C and S Inc., et al. , Case No.24-X-02-001513, Circuit Court,
Maryland, Baltimore City (case filed 6/24/02). One individual suing. |
|
|
|
Cissin v. A C and S Inc., et al., Case No.24-X-01-000078, Circuit Court, Maryland,
Baltimore City (case filed 01/17/01). One individual suing. |
|
|
|
Chatham, et al. v. A C and S Inc., et al., Case No. 24-X-01-000780, Circuit Court,
Maryland, Baltimore City. Two individuals suing. |
|
|
|
Conn, et al. v. Owens Illinois Glass Co., et al., Case No. 24-X-03-000983, Circuit
Court, Maryland, Baltimore City. Two individuals suing. |
|
|
|
Coty, et al. v. Quigley Co., Inc., et al., Case No. 24-X-04-000212, Circuit Court,
Maryland, Baltimore City. Two individuals suing. |
|
|
|
Coyne, et al. v. A C and S Inc., et al, Case No. 24-X-99-001004, Circuit Court,
Maryland, Baltimore City (case filed 5/28/99). Four individuals suing. |
|
|
|
Culbertson, et al. v. Owens Illinois Glass Co. et al., Case No. 24-X-03-0002060,
Circuit Court, Maryland, Baltimore City (case filed 2/14/03). One individual suing. |
-15-
|
|
|
Dohler, et ux. v. Owens -Illinois Glass Co., et al., Case No. 24-X-03-000451,
Circuit Court, Maryland, Baltimore City (Case filed 4/25/03). Two individuals suing. |
|
|
|
Dunaja, et al. v. Owens Illinois Glass Co., et al., Case No. 24-X-03-000189, Circuit
Court, Maryland, Baltimore City (case filed 2/10/03). Seven individuals suing. |
|
|
|
Eichelberger, et al. v. Owens Illinois Glass Co., et al., Case No. 24-X-03-000378,
Circuit Court, Maryland, Baltimore City (case filed 4/11/03). Six individuals suing. |
|
|
|
Eikenberg, et al. v. A C and S Inc., et al., Case No. 24-X-99-001782, Circuit Court,
Maryland, Baltimore City (case filed 9/8/99). Two individuals suing. |
|
|
|
Engle, William, et ux v. Owens Illinois Glass Co., et al., Case No. 24-X-02-002162,
Circuit Court, Maryland, Baltimore City (case filed 9/27/02). Two individuals suing. |
|
|
|
Everson, et al. v. A C and S Inc., et al., Case No. 24-X-98-219536, Circuit Court,
Maryland, Baltimore City (case filed 8/7/98). Two individuals suing. |
|
|
|
Fair, Joyce, et al. v. A C and S Inc., et al., Case No. 24-X-98-219540, Circuit
Court, Maryland, Baltimore City (case filed 8/7/98). Six individuals suing. |
|
|
|
Fazenbaker, et al. v. Owens Illinois Glass Co., et al., Case No. 24-X-03-000137,
Circuit Court, Maryland, Baltimore City (case filed 1/31/03). One individual suing. |
|
|
|
Fiorenza, et al. v. Owens -Illinois Glass Co., et al., Case No. 24-X-02-002448,
Circuit Court, Maryland, Baltimore City (case filed 11/6/02). Two individuals suing. |
|
|
|
Fleischman, et al. v. Owens -Illinois Glass Co., et al., Case No. 24-X-03-001120,
Circuit Court, Maryland, Baltimore City. One individual suing. |
|
|
|
Fritz, et ux v. A C and S Inc., et al, Case No. 24-X-02-000825, Circuit Court,
Maryland, Baltimore City (case filed 4/5/02). Two individuals suing. |
|
|
|
Fox, et al. v. A C and S Inc., et al., Case No. 24-X-96-239541, Circuit Court,
Maryland, Baltimore City. Two individuals suing. |
|
|
|
George, et al. v. Owens Illinois Glass Co., et al., Case No. 24-X-03-000211, Circuit
Court, Maryland, Baltimore City. Five individuals suing. |
|
|
|
Gervasi, et al. v. A C and S Inc., et al., Case No. 24-X-98-020506, Circuit Court,
Maryland, Baltimore City (case filed 1/20/98). Two individuals suing. |
|
|
|
Grant, et al. v. A C and S Inc., et al., Case No. 24-X-00-001432, Circuit Court,
Maryland, Baltimore City (case filed 12/1/00). Two individuals suing. |
-16-
|
|
|
Grose, v. A C and S Inc., et al., Case No. 24-X-99-002199, Circuit Court, Maryland,
Baltimore City (10/29/99). One individual suing. |
|
|
|
Hairsine, et al. v. A C and S Inc., et al., Case No. 24-X-98-289544, Circuit Court,
Maryland, Baltimore City (case filed 10/16/98). Two individuals suing. |
|
|
|
Hajinicolas, et al. v. A C and S Inc., et al., Case No. 24-X-02-000829, Circuit
Court, Maryland, Baltimore City (case filed 4/5/02). Two individuals suing. |
|
|
|
Harper, et al. v. A C and S Inc., et al., Case No. 24-X-98-289543, Circuit Court,
Maryland, Baltimore City (case filed 10/16/98). Two individuals suing. |
|
|
|
Harris, et al. v. Owens Illinois Glass Co. Inc., et al., Case No. 24-X-02-002656,
Circuit Court, Maryland, Baltimore City (case filed 12/6/02). One individual suing. |
|
|
|
Hempfield, et al. v. Owens Illinois Glass Co., et al., Case No. 24-X-03-000055,
Circuit Court, Maryland, Baltimore City (case filed 1/17/03). Two individuals suing. |
|
|
|
Henn, et al. v. A C and S Inc., et al., Case No. 24-X-00-001374, Circuit Court,
Maryland, Baltimore City (case filed11/22/00). Two individuals suing. |
|
|
|
Henniger, et al. v. Owens Illinois Glass Co., et al., Case No. 24-X-03-000681,
Circuit Court, Maryland, Baltimore City. Two individuals suing. |
|
|
|
Hill v. A C and S Inc., et al., Case No. 24-X-02-000957, Circuit Court, Maryland,
Baltimore City (case filed 4/12/02). One individual suing. |
|
|
|
Hill, Thelma C., et al. v. Owens Illinois Glass Co., et al., Case No.
24-X-03-000143, Circuit Court, Maryland, Baltimore City. Two individuals suing. |
|
|
|
Holmes, et al. v. A C and S Inc., et al., Case No. 24-X-90-264509, Circuit Court,
Maryland, Baltimore City. One individual suing. |
|
|
|
Huffman, et al. v. Owens Corning Fiberglass Corporation, et al., Case No.
24-X-90-358501, Circuit Court, Maryland, Baltimore City (6/18/90). Two individuals suing |
|
|
|
Huncher, et, al. v. A C and S Inc., et al., Case No. 24-X-97-353534, Circuit Court,
Maryland, Baltimore City (case filed 12/19/97). Two individuals suing. |
|
|
|
Ingram, et al. v. B. F. Goodrich Company, et al., Case No. 24-X-01-002030, Circuit
Court, Maryland, Baltimore City (case filed 12/10/01). Two individuals suing. |
|
|
|
Ireland, et al. v. A C and S Inc., et al., Case No. 24-X-02-002493, Circuit Court,
Maryland, Baltimore City (11/15/02). Five individuals suing. |
-17-
|
|
|
Jacob, et al. v. A C and S Inc., et al., Case No. 24-X-02-000931, Circuit Court,
Maryland, Baltimore City (case filed 4/12/02). Four individuals suing. |
|
|
|
Jagodzinski, et al. v. A C and S Inc., et al., Case No. 24-X-02-001365, Circuit
Court, Maryland, Baltimore City (6/7/02). Three individuals suing. |
|
|
|
James, et al. v. Owens Corning Fiberglas Corp., et al., Case No. 24-X-98-072526,
Circuit Court, Maryland, Baltimore City (case filed 03/13/98). Two individuals suing. |
|
|
|
Jennette, et al. v. A C and S Inc., et al., Case No. 24-X-98-135533, Circuit Court,
Maryland, Baltimore City (case filed 5/15/98). Four individuals suing. |
|
|
|
Johnson, et al. v. A C and S Inc., et al., Case No. 24-X-95146511, Circuit Court,
Maryland, Baltimore City (case filed 1/6/97). Two individuals suing. |
|
|
|
Jones, H, et al. v. A C and S Inc., et al., Case No. 24-X-00-000061, Circuit Court,
Maryland, Baltimore City (case filed 1/27/00). Two individuals suing. |
|
|
|
Jones, W, et ux. v. Owens Illinois Glass Co., et al., Case No. 24-X-02-002649,
Circuit Court, Maryland, Baltimore City (case filed 12/6/02). One individual suing. |
|
|
|
Jordon, et al. v. Owens Corning Fiberglass Corporation, et al., Case No.
24-X95-055503, Circuit Court, Maryland, Baltimore City. Three individuals suing. |
|
|
|
Kahler, et al. v. A C and S, Inc., et al., Case No. 24-X-02-002634, Circuit Court,
Maryland, Baltimore City. Two individuals suing. |
|
|
|
Kennedy, et al. v. Owens Illinois Glass Co., et al., Case No. 24-X-03-000729,
Circuit Court, Maryland, Baltimore City. Two individuals suing. |
|
|
|
Kraus, et al. v. Owens Illinois Glass Co., et al., Case No. 24-X-02-002351, Circuit
Court, Maryland, Baltimore City (case filed 10/18/02). Two individuals suing. |
|
|
|
Lang, et al. v. Owens Illinois Glass Co., et al., Case No. 24-X-02-002564, Circuit
Court, Maryland, Baltimore City (11/22/02). Three individuals suing. |
|
|
|
Legrand, et ux. v. Owens Illinois Glass Co., et al., Case No. 24-X-03-000986,
Circuit Court, Maryland, Baltimore City. Two individuals suing. |
|
|
|
Lewis, et al. v. A C and S Inc., et al., Case No. 24-X-01-001906, Circuit Court,
Maryland, Baltimore City (11/29/01). Two individuals suing. |
|
|
|
Mackenzie, et al. v. Owens Corning Fiberglas Corporation, et al., Case No.
24-X-98-341506, Circuit Court, Maryland, Baltimore City (case filed 12/7/98).Two individuals
suing. |
-18-
|
|
|
Marshall, et al. v. A C and S Inc., et al., Case No. 24-X-89-188528, Circuit Court,
Maryland, Baltimore City. Two individuals suing. |
|
|
|
Masimore v. A C and S Inc., et al., Case No. 24-X-01-000578, Circuit Court,
Maryland, Baltimore City (case filed 04/19/01). One individual suing. |
|
|
|
McCormack, et al. v. Owens Corning Fiberglass Corporation, et al., Case No.
24-X-90-358501, Circuit Court, Maryland, Baltimore City (case filed 8/1/90). Two
individuals suing. |
|
|
|
McCormick, Rose, et al. v. Owens Illinois Glass Co., et al., Case No.
24-X-03-000260, Circuit Court, Maryland, Baltimore City (case filed 3/7/03). Two
individuals suing. |
|
|
|
McCoy, et al. v. A C and S Inc., et al., Case No. 24-X-02-001436, Circuit Court,
Maryland, Baltimore City (case filed 6/14/02). Five individuals suing. |
|
|
|
McClung, et al. v. Owens Illinois Glass Co., et al., Case No. 24-X-03-000743,
Circuit Court, Maryland, Baltimore City (case filed 6/20/03). Two individuals suing. |
|
|
|
McDermott, et al. v. Owens Corning Fiberglas Corporation, et al., Case No.
24-X-97-045522, Circuit Court, Maryland, Baltimore City (case filed 9/8/00). One individual
suing. |
|
|
|
Needham, et al. v. Owens Illinois Glass Co., et al., Case No. 24-X-03-001192,
circuit Court, Maryland, Baltimore City. Two individuals suing. |
|
|
|
Nielsen, et al. v. A C and S Inc., et al., Case No. 24-X-00-000479, Circuit Court,
Maryland, Baltimore City (case filed 5/16/00). Two individuals suing. |
|
|
|
Parton, et al. v. Owens Illinois Glass Co., et al., Case No. 24-X-03-000063, Circuit
Court, Maryland, Baltimore City (case filed 1/17/03). Seven individuals suing. |
|
|
|
Pierce, et al. v. Owens Corning Fiberglas Corporation, et al., Case No.
24-X-98-219529, Circuit Court, Maryland, Baltimore City. Two individuals suing. |
|
|
|
Piercy, et al. v. Owens- Illinois Glass Co., et al., Case No. 24-X-02-002314,
Circuit Court, Maryland, Baltimore City (case filed 10/11/02). Two individuals suing. |
|
|
|
Pompa, et al. v. Owens Corning Fiberglas, et al., Case No. 24-X-98-072505, Circuit
Court, Maryland, Baltimore City (case filed 3/13/98). One individual suing. |
|
|
|
Pressley v. A C and S Inc., et al., Case No. 24-X-02-002682, Circuit Court.
Maryland, Baltimore City (case filed 12/13/02). One individual suing. |
|
|
|
Price, et al. v. Owens Illinois Glass Co., et al., Case No. 24-X-03-001058, Circuit
Court, Maryland, Baltimore City. Two individuals suing. |
-19-
|
|
|
Pusinsky, et al., v. A C and S Inc., et al., Case No. 24-X-99-000929, Circuit Court,
Maryland, Baltimore City (case filed 5/21/99). Two individuals suing. |
|
|
|
Rhoades, et ux. v. Quigley Company, Inc., et al., Case No. 24-X-04-000060, Circuit
Court, Maryland, Baltimore City. Two individuals suing. |
|
|
|
Ridgley, et al. v. Owens Illinois Glass co., et al., Case No. 24-X-03-000124,
Circuit Court, Maryland, Baltimore City (case filed 1/31/03). Two individuals suing. |
|
|
|
Roberts v. A C and S Inc., et al., Case No. 24-X-02-001161, Circuit Court, Maryland,
Baltimore City (case filed 5/10/02). One individual suing. |
|
|
|
Rollins, et al. v. A C and S Inc., et al., Case No. 24-X-02-000748, Circuit Court,
Maryland, Baltimore City (case filed3/28/02). Two individuals suing. |
|
|
|
Russell, et al. v. Owens Corning Fiberglas Corporation, et al., Case No.
24-X-98-343501, Circuit Court, Maryland, Baltimore City (case filed 12/9/98). Two
individuals suing. |
|
|
|
Ryan, et al. v. Owens Corning Fiberglass Corporation, et al., Case No.
24-X-97-045529, Circuit Court, Maryland, Baltimore City. One individuals suing. |
|
|
|
Sassler, et al. v. Owens Corning Fiberglass Corporation, et al., Case No.
24-X96341506, Circuit Court, Maryland, Baltimore City. Three individuals suing. |
|
|
|
Savoie, et al. v. A C and S Inc., et al., Case No. 24-X-02-001666, Circuit Court,
Maryland, Baltimore City (7/25/2002). Two individuals suing. |
|
|
|
Silbersack, et al. v. A C and S Inc., et al., Case No. 24-X-97083510, Circuit Court,
Maryland, Baltimore City (case filed 3/24/96). Three individuals suing. |
|
|
|
Smith, et al. v. A C and S Inc., et al., Case No. 24-X-01-000771, Circuit Court,
Maryland, Baltimore City (case filed 5/25/01). Two individuals suing. |
|
|
|
Smith, K., et al. v. A C and S Inc., et al., Case No. 24-X-02-000954, Circuit Court,
Maryland, Baltimore City (case filed 4/12/02). Two individuals suing. |
|
|
|
Speranzella, et al. v. A C and S Inc., et al., Case No. 24-X-99-002733, Circuit
Court, Maryland, Baltimore City (case filed 12/22/99). One individual suing. |
|
|
|
Stuchinski, et al. v. A C and S Inc., et al., Case No. 24-X-02-000243, Circuit
Court, Maryland, Baltimore City (case filed 1/31/02). Two individuals suing. |
|
|
|
Strausburg, et al. v. A C and S Inc., et al., Case No. 24-X-98-135539, Circuit
Court, Maryland, Baltimore City (case filed 5/15/98). Four individuals suing. |
-20-
|
|
|
Stockstill, et al. v. Owens Illinois Grace Company, et al., Case No. 24-X-03-000272,
Circuit Court, Maryland, Baltimore City (case filed 3/7/03). Two individuals suing. |
|
|
|
Thames, et al. v. A C and S Inc., et al., Case No. 24-X94-325506, Circuit Court,
Maryland, Baltimore City (case filed 11/21/94). Two individuals suing. |
|
|
|
Tull, et al. v. A C and S Inc., et al., Case No. 24-X-01-000537, Circuit Court,
Maryland, Baltimore City (case filed 4/11/01). Two individuals suing. |
|
|
|
Turner v. A C and S Inc., et al., Case No. 24-X-98-301502, Circuit Court, Maryland,
Baltimore City. One individual suing. |
|
|
|
Twine v. A C and S Inc., et al., Case No. 24-X-02-000582, Circuit Court, Maryland,
Baltimore City (3/8/02). One individual suing. |
|
|
|
Walpole, et al. v. Owens Illinois Glass Co., et al., Case No. 24-X-02-002177,
Circuit Court, Maryland, Baltimore City (case filed 9/27/02). Two individuals suing. |
|
|
|
Walter, et al. v. A C and S Inc., et al., Case No. 24-X-91-310530, Circuit Court,
Maryland, Baltimore City. Two individuals suing. |
|
|
|
Waugh, et al. v. Quigley Company, Inc., et al., Case No. 24-X-04-000209, Circuit
Court, Maryland, Baltimore City. Four individuals suing. |
|
|
|
Wilson, et al. v. A C and S Inc., et al., Case No. 24-X-95146533, Circuit Court,
Maryland, Baltimore City (case filed 5/26/95). Three individuals suing. |
|
|
|
Williams, et al. v. A C and S Inc., et al., Case No. 24-X-99-000113, Circuit Court,
Maryland, Baltimore City (case filed 1/20/99). Two individuals suing. |
|
|
|
Winkler, et al. v. Owens Corning Fiberglas Corporation, et al., Case No.
24-X-98-402564, Circuit Court, Maryland, Baltimore City. Two individuals suing. |
|
|
|
Witkowski, et al. v. A C and S Inc., et al., Case No. 24-X-98-020519, Circuit Court,
Maryland, Baltimore City (case filed 1/20/98). One individual suing. |
|
|
|
West, et al. v. Owens Illinois Glass Co., et al., Case No. 24-X-03-000970, Circuit
Court, Maryland, Baltimore City. Five individuals suing. |
|
|
|
Wright, et al. v. Owens Illinois Glass Co., et al., Case No. 24-X-03-000162, Circuit
Court, Maryland, Baltimore City (case filed 1/31/03). Two individuals suing. |
|
|
|
Young, et al. v. Owens Corning Fiberglass Corporation, et al., Case No.
24-X-97-139547, Circuit Court, Maryland, Baltimore City (case filed 5/19/97). Two
individuals suing. |
-21-
|
|
|
Znovena, et al. v. AC and S Inc., et al., Case No. 24-X-97240553CX1848, Circuit
Court, Maryland, Baltimore City (case filed 8/24/98). Two individuals suing. |
|
|
|
Monty v. Harvard Pilgrim Health Care, et al., Demand Letter. Superior Court,
Massachusetts. No suit filed. |
|
|
|
Nysko, et al. v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, et al., Demand letter and draft
complaint, Superior Court of Massachusetts, Middlesex County. No suit filed. |
|
|
|
Piscione v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, et al., Demand letter and draft
complaint, Superior Court of Massachusetts, Middlesex County. No suit filed. |
|
|
|
Satchell v. The Tobacco Institute, Inc., et al., Demand Letter. Superior Court,
Massachusetts. No suit filed. |
|
|
|
Angelethy, et al. v. R. J. Reynolds, et al., Case No. 02-KV-0315-J, Circuit Court,
Mississippi, Adams County (case filed 4/21/03). Six individuals suing. |
|
|
|
Anderson, Harvey, L., et al. v. R. J. Reynolds, et al., Case No. 2002-309, Chancery
Court, Mississippi, Adams County (case filed 4/25/02). Two individuals suing. |
|
|
|
Banks, et al. v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, et al., Case No. 2000-136, Circuit
Court, Mississippi, Jefferson County (case filed 12/22/2000). Six individuals suing. |
|
|
|
Barker, Pearlie, et al. v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, et al., Case No. 2001-64,
Circuit Court, Mississippi, Jefferson County (case filed 3/30/01). Three individuals suing. |
|
|
|
Bell, et al. v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, et al., Case No. 2001-271, Chancery
Court, Mississippi, Jefferson County (case filed 12/18/01). Six individuals suing. |
|
|
|
Blythe v. Rapid American Corporation, et al., Case No. CI 96-0080-AS, Circuit Court,
Mississippi, Jackson County (case filed 9/23/96). One individual suing. |
|
|
|
Brown, Glayson, et al. v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, et al., Case No.
2001-0022(1) Circuit Court, Mississippi, George County (case filed 3/30/01). 224
individuals suing. |
|
|
|
Buford, et al. v R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, et al., Case No. 2001-268, Chancery
Court, Mississippi, Jefferson County (case filed 12/17/01). |
|
|
|
Chambliss, et al. v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, et al., Case No. 2001-273,
Circuit Court, Mississippi, George County (case filed 12/21/01). Four individuals suing. |
|
|
|
Cochran, et al. v. R. J. Reynolds, et al., Case No. 2002-0366(3), Circuit Court,
Mississippi, George County (case filed 12/31/02). One individual suing. |
-22-
|
|
|
Cook, et al. v. Philip Morris Incorporated, et al., Case No. 2001-166, Chancery
Court, Mississippi, Claiborne County (case filed 10/01/01). Two individuals suing. |
|
|
|
Combustion Engineering, et al. v. R. J. R. Nabisco, Inc., et al., Case No. 2001-86,
Circuit Court, Mississippi, Claiborne County (case filed 4/18/01). Six individuals are
suing. |
|
|
|
Combustion Engineering, et al. v. R. J. R. Nabisco, et al., Case No. 2000-617,
Circuit Court, Mississippi, Jefferson County (case filed 4/18/01). Claims of plaintiff
Combustion Engineering only were dismissed with prejudice by order dated 8/26/04. The
claims of individual plaintiffs are still pending. Five individuals are suing. |
|
|
|
Fischer, et al. v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, et al., Case No. 02-0196, Circuit
Court, Mississippi, Wilkinson County (case filed 4/29/03). Five individuals suing. |
|
|
|
Glass, et al. v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, et al., Case No. 2002-338, Circuit
Court, Mississippi, Jefferson County (case filed 12/20/02). Seven individuals suing. |
|
|
|
Goss, et al. v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, et al., Case No.2002-308, Chancery
Court, Mississippi, Adams County (case filed 4/25/02). Three individuals suing. |
|
|
|
Griffin, et al. v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, et al., Case No. 2001-274,
Chancery Court, Mississippi, Jefferson County (case filed 1/9/02). Four individuals are
suing. |
|
|
|
Harried, et al. v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, et al., Case No. 2002-041,
Chancery Court, Mississippi, Jefferson County (case filed 03/01/02). Two individuals
suing. |
|
|
|
Harris, et al. v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, et al., Case No. 2002-853,
Chancery Court, Mississippi, Adams County (case filed 4/21/03). Six individuals suing. |
|
|
|
Hill, et al. v. Philip Morris Incorporated, et al., Case No. 2001-163, Chancery
Court, Mississippi, Claiborne County (case filed 9/27/01). Two individuals suing. |
|
|
|
Holmes, et al. v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, et al., Case No. 2002-424,
Chancery Court, Mississippi, Copiah County (case filed 9/11/02). Five individuals suing. |
|
|
|
Humphrey, et al. v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, et al., Case No. 2000-608,
Circuit Court, Mississippi, Jefferson County (case filed 12/1/00). Twenty individuals are
suing. |
|
|
|
Jennings, et al. v. R. J. Reynolds, et al., Case No. 2000-238, Circuit Court,
Mississippi, Claiborne County (case filed 11/2/00). Fourteen individuals suing. |
|
|
|
Kaiser Aluminum and Chemical Corporation, et al. v. R. J. R. Nabisco, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 2000-615, Circuit Court, Mississippi, Jefferson County (case filed 12/15/00).
Claims of plaintiff Kaiser Aluminum and Chemical Corporation only were dismissed with
prejudice by Agreed Final Judgment of Dismissal dated 6/16/04. The claims of individual
plaintiffs are still pending. |
-23-
|
|
|
Kelly, et al. v. R. J. Reynolds, et al., Case No. 2002-404, Circuit Court,
Mississippi, Claiborne County. Seven individuals suing. |
|
|
|
McDougel, et al. v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, et al., Case No. 2002-040,
Chancery Court, Mississippi, Jefferson County (case filed 03/01/02). Three individuals
suing. |
|
|
|
McGee, et al. v. Philip Morris Incorporated, et al., Case No. 2000-596, Circuit
Court, Mississippi, Jefferson County (case filed 11/16/00). Nineteen individuals suing. |
|
|
|
Mitchell, et al. v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, et al., Case No. 2002-392,
Chancery Court, Mississippi, Adams County (case filed 05/28/02). Three individuals suing. |
|
|
|
Murphy, et al. v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, et al., Case No. 2002-390,
Chancery Court, Mississippi, Adams County (case filed 05/28/02). Three individuals suing. |
|
|
|
Oliver, et al. v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, et al., Case No. 2001-275,
Chancery Court, Mississippi, Jefferson County (case filed 12/21/01). Four individuals are
suing. |
|
|
|
Patterson, et al. v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, et al., Case No. 5:04cv174,
USDC, Southern District, Mississippi, Western Division (case filed 7/7/04). One individual
suing. |
|
|
|
Pilgram, et al. v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, et al., Case No. G2002-2374W/4,
Chancery Court, Mississippi, Hinds County (case filed 12/30/02). Eighteen individuals
suing. |
|
|
|
Smith, et al. v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, et al., Case No. 2002-391, Chancery
Court, Mississippi, Adams County (case filed 05/28/02). Three individuals suing. |
|
|
|
Starks, et al. v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, et al., Case No. 2002-071,
Chancery Court, Mississippi, Jefferson County (case filed 04/25/02). Three individuals
suing. |
|
|
|
Stevens, et al. v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, et al., Case No. 03-KV-0055-J,
Circuit Court, Mississippi, Adams County (case filed 4/30/03). One individual suing. |
|
|
|
T&N, LTD, et al. v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, et al., Case No. 2001-87,
Circuit Court, Mississippi, Claiborne County (case filed 4/18/01). Liggett & Myers and
Brooke Group were dismissed 8/16/01; Liggett Group is still a defendant. Claims of
plaintiff T&N, LTD only were dismissed with prejudice by Agreed Final Judgment of Dismissal
dated 6/16/04. The claims of individual plaintiffs are still pending. Three individuals are
suing. |
|
|
|
T&N, LTD, et al. v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, et al., Case No. 2000-618,
Circuit Court, Mississippi, Jefferson County (case filed 4/18/01). Liggett & Myers and
Brooke Group were dismissed 8/16/01; Liggett Group is still a defendant. Claims of
plaintiff T&N, LTD only were dismissed with prejudice by Agreed Final Judgment of Dismissal |
-24-
|
|
|
dated 6/16/04. The claims of individual plaintiffs are still pending. Two individuals are
suing. |
|
|
|
Thomas, Ezell, et al. v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, et al., Case No. 96-0065,
Circuit Court, Mississippi, Jefferson County (case filed 1996). |
|
|
|
W. R. Grace, et al. v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, et al., Case No. 2001-58,
Circuit Court, Mississippi, Jefferson County (case filed 3/23/01). Liggett & Myers and
Brooke Group were dismissed 8/16/01; Liggett Group is still a defendant. This suit was
stayed pending resolution of the Owens Corning case before the Mississippi Supreme Court. |
|
|
|
Walters, et al. v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, et al., Case No. 2002-845,
Chancery Court, Mississippi, Adams County (case filed 12/31/02). Thirteen individuals
suing. |
|
|
|
White, et al. v. Philip Morris, Inc. et al., Case No. 97-0053, Chancery Court,
Mississippi, Jefferson County (case filed 4/24/97). Three individuals suing. |
|
|
|
Wilson, et al. v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, et al., Case No. 2002-208,
Chancery Court, Mississippi, Adams County (case filed 03/15/02). Four individuals suing. |
|
|
|
Woods, et al. v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, et al., Case No. 2002-06, Chancery
Court, Mississippi, Claiborne County (case filed 1/9/02). Two individuals are suing. |
|
|
|
Alexander, et al. v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corporation, et al., Case No.
03-CV-202909, Circuit Court, Missouri, Jackson County (case filed 5/21/03). Nineteen
individuals suing. |
|
|
|
Bayro, et al. v. Philip Morris, Inc., et al., Circuit Court, Missouri, Jackson
County. Three individuals suing. Liggett has not yet been served with the complaint. |
|
|
|
Davis, et al. v. American Tobacco Company, et al., Case No. 2:00-CV-26-CEJ, USDC,
Missouri, Eastern District (case filed 9/25/00). Two individuals suing. |
|
|
|
Mattern, et al. v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corporation, et al., Case No.
032-09705, Circuit Court, 22nd Judicial Circuit, Missouri, St. Louis City (case filed
9/5/03) Two individuals suing. Plaintiff has dismissed all defendants except Liggett. |
|
|
|
Armendariz v. Philip Morris, et al., Case No. 999/862, District Court, Nebraska,
Douglas County (case filed 11/17/00). One individual suing. |
|
|
|
Mumin v. Philip Morris, et al., Doc. 1000 No. 46, District Court, Nebraska, Douglas
County (case filed 11/27/00). One individual suing. |
|
|
|
Alvarez v. The American Tobacco Company, et al., Case No. 102872/02, Supreme Court
of New York, New York County. One individual suing. |
-25-
|
|
|
Alvarado v. The American Tobacco Company, et al., Case No. 102874/02, Supreme Court
of New York, New York County. One individual suing. |
|
|
|
Brantley v. The American Tobacco Company, et al., Case No. 114317/01, Supreme Court
of New York, New York County. Individual suing. |
|
|
|
Crescenzo v. The American Tobacco Company, et al., Case No. 102817/02, Supreme Court
of New York, New York County. Individual suing. |
|
|
|
Debobes v. The American Tobacco Company, et al., Case No. 29544/92, Supreme Court of
New York, Nassau County. One Individual suing. |
|
|
|
Fabiano, et al. v. Philip Morris Incorporated, et al., Case No. 04-102715, Supreme
Court of New York, New York County (case filed 2/20/2004). Two individuals suing. |
|
|
|
Hausrath, et al. v. Philip Morris Inc., et al, Case No. I2001-09526, Superior Court,
New York, Erie County (case filed 01/24/02). Two individuals suing. |
|
|
|
Hobart v. The American Tobacco Company, et al., Case No. 102869/02, Supreme Court of
New York, New York County. Individual suing. |
|
|
|
Hochman v. The American Tobacco Company, et al., Case No. 102860/02, Supreme Court
of New York, New York County. Individual suing. |
|
|
|
James v. The American Tobacco Company, et al., Case No. 103034/02, Supreme Court of
New York, New York County. Individual suing. |
|
|
|
Mach, et al. v. Philip Morris USA, Inc., et al., Case No. 21401/04, Supreme Court of
New York, Kings County. One individual suing. |
|
|
|
McCormack v. The American Tobacco Company, et al., Case No. 102864/02, Supreme Court
of New York, New York County. Individual suing. |
|
|
|
Oberst v. The American Tobacco Company, et al., Case No. 108428/98, Supreme Court of
New York, New York County. Individual suing. |
|
|
|
Shea, et al. v. The American Tobacco Company, et al., Case No. 008938/03, Supreme
Court of New York, Nassau County. Two individuals suing. |
|
|
|
Smith, et al. v. The American Tobacco Co., et al., Case No. 020525/97, Supreme Court
of New York, Queens County (case filed 9/19/97). Eight individuals suing. |
|
|
|
Standish, et al. v. The American Tobacco Co., et al., Case No. 18418-97, Supreme
Court of New York, Bronx County (case filed 7/28/97). One individual suing. |
-26-
|
|
|
Tormey, Thomas M., et al. v. The American Tobacco, et al., Case No. 2005-0506,
Supreme Court of New York, Onondaga County (case filed 1/25/05). Two individuals suing. |
|
|
|
Yedwabnick, Bernard, et al. v. The American Tobacco Company, et al., Case
No.20525/97, Supreme court of New York, Queens County. |
|
|
|
Yuen v. The American Tobacco Company, et al., Case No. 102861/02, Supreme Court of
New York, New York County. Individual suing. |
|
|
|
Wilson, et al. v. Liggett & Myers, et al., USDC, Middle District Court, North
Carolina. One individual suing. |
|
|
|
Buscemi v. Brown & Williamson, et al., Case No. 002007, Court of Common Pleas,
Pennsylvania, Philadelphia County (case filed 9/21/99). Two individuals suing. |
|
|
|
Ayala , The Estate of, et al. v. Philip Morris Inc., et al., Case No.
02-2175(VJ/PG), USDC, District of Puerto Rico, Puerto Rico (case filed 8/8/02). Five
individuals suing. |
|
|
|
Cabrera, et al. v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, et al., Case No. 03-207, USDC,
District of Puerto Rico, Puerto Rico (case filed 10/7/03). Three individuals suing. |
|
|
|
Cruz, et al. v. Philip Morris Inc., et al., Case No. 02-2507(RLA), USDC, District of
Puerto Rico, Puerto Rico (case filed 10/7/02). Twenty-three individuals suing. |
|
|
|
De Jesus Diaz, et al. v. Philip Morris Inc, et al., Case No. 03-1900, USDC, District
of Puerto Rico, Puerto Rico (case filed 8/21/03). Two Hundred Sixty-Six individuals suing. |
|
|
|
De Jesus Rivera, et al. v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco, et al., Case No. 03-1099, USDC,
District of Puerto Rico, Puerto Rico (case filed 01/03/03). Twelve individuals suing. |
|
|
|
Linder, et al. v. Liggett Myers, et al., Case No. 02-2435, USDC, District of Puerto
Rico, Puerto Rico (case filed 1/3/03). Two individuals suing. |
|
|
|
Lopez, The Estate of, et al. v. Philip Morris Inc., et al., Case No. 02-2173(RLA),
USDC, District of Puerto Rico, Puerto Rico (case filed 8/8/02). Nine individuals suing. |
|
|
|
Lopez, Isabel Quintana, et al. v. Liggett Group Inc., et al., Case No. 03-2048,
USDC, District of Puerto Rico, Puerto Rico (case filed 9/26/03). Two individuals suing. |
|
|
|
Martinez, The Estate of, et al. v. Philip Morris Inc., et al., Case No. 02-2171
(HL), USDC, District of Puerto Rico, Puerto Rico (case filed 8/8/02). Six individuals
suing. |
|
|
|
Pandal, The Estate of, et al. v. Philip Morris Inc., et al., Case No. 03-1642 (SEC),
USDC, District of Puerto Rico, Puerto Rico (case filed 6/9/03). Five individuals suing. |
-27-
|
|
|
Reyes, The Estate of , et al. v. Philip Morris Inc., et al., Case No. 02-2174(SEC),
USDC, District of Puerto Rico, Puerto Rico (case filed 8/8/02). Ten individuals suing. |
|
|
|
Rodriguez-Torres, et al. v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, et al., Case No.
03-1644 (SEC), USDC, District of Puerto Rico (case filed 6/10/03). Eight individuals suing. |
|
|
|
Ruiz Diaz, et al., v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, et al., Case No. 03-1003 JAG,
USDC, District of Puerto Rico (case filed 1/3/03). Eight individuals suing. |
|
|
|
Velez, The Estate of, et al. v. Philip Morris Inc., et al., Case No. 02-2172(JAG), USDC, District of Puerto Rico, Puerto Rico (case filed 8/8/02). Twelve individuals suing. |
|
|
|
Velez, Maribel Arturet, v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, et al., Case No. 03-2049,
USDC, District of Puerto Rico, Puerto Rico (case filed 9/28/03). One Individual suing. |
|
|
|
Brown v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., et al., Case No. 98-5447, Superior Court,
Rhode Island (case filed 10/30/98). One individual suing. |
|
|
|
Nicolo v. Philip Morris, et al., Case No. 96-528 B, USDC, Rhode Island (case filed
9/24/96). One individual suing. |
|
|
|
Adams v. Brown & Williamson, et al., Case No. 96-17502, District Court of the 164th
Judicial District, Texas, Harris County (case filed 4/30/96). One individual suing. |
|
|
|
Colunga v. American Brands, Inc., et al., Case No. C-97-265, USDC, Texas, Southern
District (case filed 4/17/97). One individual suing. |
|
|
|
Hale, et al. v. American Brands, Inc., et al., Case No. C-6568-96B, District Court
of the 93rd Judicial District, Texas, Hidalgo County (case filed 1/30/97). One
individual suing. |
|
|
|
Hamilton, et al. v. BGLS, Inc., et al., Case No. C 70609 6 D, USDC, Texas, Southern
District (case filed 2/26/97). Five individuals suing. |
|
|
|
Hodges, et vir v. Liggett Group, Inc., et al., Case No. 8000*JG99, District Court of
the 239th Judicial District, Texas, Brazoria County (case filed 5/5/99). Two
individuals suing. |
|
|
|
Jackson, Hazel, et al. v. Philip Morris, Inc., et al., Case No. G-01-071, USDC,
Texas, Southern District (case filed 2/7/2001). Five individuals suing. |
|
|
|
Luna v. American Brands, et al., Case No. 96-5654-H, USDC, Texas, Southern
District (case filed 2/18/97). One individual suing. |
|
|
|
McLean, et al. v. Philip Morris, et al., Case No. 2-96-CV-167, USDC, Texas, Eastern
District (case filed 8/30/96). Three individuals suing. |
-28-
|
|
|
Mireles v. American Brands, Inc., et al., Case No. 966143A, District Court of the
28th Judicial District, Texas, Nueces County (case filed 2/14/97). One
individual suing. |
|
|
|
Misell, et al. v. American Brands, et al., Case No. 96-6287-H, District Court of the
347th Judicial District, Texas, Nueces County (case filed 1/3/97). Four
individuals suing. |
|
|
|
Ramirez v. American Brands, Inc., et al., Case No. M-97-050, USDC, Texas, Southern
District (case filed 12/23/96). One individual suing. |
|
|
|
Thompson, et al. v. Brown & Williamson, et al., Case No. 97-2981-D, District Court
of the 105th Judicial District, Texas, Nueces County (case filed 12/15/97). Two
individuals suing. |
|
|
|
Bowden, et al. v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, et al., Case No. 98-0068-L, USDC,
Virginia, Western District (case filed 1/6/99). |
|
|
|
Vaughan v. Mark L. Earley, et al., Case No. 760 CH 99 K 00011-00, Circuit Court,
Virginia, Richmond (case filed 1/8/99). One individual suing. |
|
|
|
Brewer, et al. v. The American Tobacco Company, et al., Case No. 01-C-82, Circuit
Court, West Virginia, Ohio County. Two individuals suing. |
|
|
|
In Re Tobacco PI (5000), Case NO. 00-C-5000, Circuit Court, West Virginia, Ohio
County. Consolidating approximately 1,000 individual smoker actions which were pending
prior to 2001. Liggett has been severed from the trial of the consolidated action. |
|
|
|
Little, W. v. The American Tobacco Company, et al., Case No. 01-C-235, Circuit
Court, West Virginia, Ohio County (case filed 6/4/01). One individual suing. |
|
|
|
Floyd v. State of Wisconsin, et al., Case No. 99 CV 001125, Circuit Court,
Wisconsin, Milwaukee County (case filed 2/10/99). One individual suing. |
VI. PRICE FIXING CASES
|
|
|
Smith, et al. v. Philip Morris Companies, Inc., et al., Case No. 00-CV-26, District
Court, Kansas, Seward County (case filed 2/7/00). In this class action plaintiffs allege
that defendants conspired to fix, raise, stabilize, or maintain prices for cigarettes in the
State of Kansas. The court granted class certification in November 2001. |
|
|
|
Romero, et al. v. Philip Morris Companies, Inc. et al., Case No. D0117 CV-00000972,
District Court, Rio Arriba County, New Mexico (case filed 4/10/00). In this class action
plaintiffs allege that defendants conspired to fix, raise, stabilize, or maintain prices for
cigarettes in the State of New Mexico. Plaintiffs motion for class certification was
granted in April 2003. In February 2005, the New Mexico Supreme Court affirmed the trial
courts certification order. |
-29-