10-Q
UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C. 20549
FORM 10-Q
QUARTERLY REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE
SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
For The Quarterly Period Ended March 31, 2009
VECTOR GROUP LTD.
(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)
|
|
|
|
|
Delaware
|
|
1-5759
|
|
65-0949535 |
(State or other jurisdiction
incorporation or organization)
|
|
Commission File Number
|
|
(I.R.S. Employer Identification No.) |
100 S.E. Second Street
Miami, Florida 33131
305/579-8000
(Address, including zip code and telephone number, including area code,
of the principal executive offices)
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 whether the registrant has submitted electronically and posted on its
corporate Web site, if any, every Interactive Data File required to be submitted and posted
pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T (§232.405 of this chapter) during the preceding 12 months
(or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to submit and post such files). o Yes o No
Indicate by check mark whether the Registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated
filer, a non-accelerated filer or a smaller reporting company. See definition of large
accelerated filer, accelerated filer and smaller reporting company in Rule 12b-2 of the
Exchange Act.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Large accelerated filer x
|
|
Accelerated filer o
|
|
Non-accelerated filer o
|
|
Smaller reporting company o |
|
|
|
(Do not check if a smaller reporting company) |
|
Indicate by check mark whether the Registrant is a shell company as defined in Rule 12b-2 of
the Exchange Act. o Yes x No
At May 11, 2009, Vector Group Ltd. had 66,514,825 shares of common stock outstanding.
VECTOR GROUP LTD.
FORM 10-Q
TABLE OF CONTENTS
-1-
PART I. FINANCIAL INFORMATION
ITEM 1. VECTOR GROUP LTD. CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Unaudited)
VECTOR GROUP LTD. AND SUBSIDIARIES
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS
(Dollars in Thousands, Except Per Share Amounts)
Unaudited
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
March 31, |
|
|
|
December 31, |
|
|
|
2009 |
|
|
|
2008 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ASSETS: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Current assets: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents |
|
$ |
202,349 |
|
|
|
$ |
211,105 |
|
Investment securities available for sale |
|
|
24,496 |
|
|
|
|
28,518 |
|
Accounts receivable trade |
|
|
1,756 |
|
|
|
|
9,506 |
|
Inventories |
|
|
91,546 |
|
|
|
|
92,581 |
|
Deferred income taxes |
|
|
5,683 |
|
|
|
|
3,642 |
|
Restricted assets |
|
|
3,229 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other current assets |
|
|
6,364 |
|
|
|
|
9,931 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total current assets |
|
|
335,423 |
|
|
|
|
355,283 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Property, plant and equipment, net |
|
|
48,927 |
|
|
|
|
50,691 |
|
Mortgage receivable, net |
|
|
12,704 |
|
|
|
|
17,704 |
|
Long-term investments accounted for at cost |
|
|
51,118 |
|
|
|
|
51,118 |
|
Investments in non-consolidated real estate businesses |
|
|
44,058 |
|
|
|
|
50,775 |
|
Restricted assets |
|
|
6,103 |
|
|
|
|
6,555 |
|
Deferred income taxes |
|
|
48,850 |
|
|
|
|
45,222 |
|
Intangible asset |
|
|
107,511 |
|
|
|
|
107,511 |
|
Prepaid pension costs |
|
|
2,991 |
|
|
|
|
2,901 |
|
Other assets |
|
|
25,541 |
|
|
|
|
29,952 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total assets |
|
$ |
683,226 |
|
|
|
$ |
717,712 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
LIABILITIES AND STOCKHOLDERS EQUITY: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Current liabilities: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Current portion of notes payable and long-term debt |
|
$ |
100,059 |
|
|
|
$ |
97,498 |
|
Current portion of employee benefits |
|
|
21,840 |
|
|
|
|
21,840 |
|
Accounts payable |
|
|
5,957 |
|
|
|
|
6,104 |
|
Accrued promotional expenses |
|
|
9,589 |
|
|
|
|
10,131 |
|
Income taxes payable, net |
|
|
88,245 |
|
|
|
|
11,803 |
|
Accrued excise and payroll taxes payable, net |
|
|
4,575 |
|
|
|
|
7,004 |
|
Settlement accruals |
|
|
29,918 |
|
|
|
|
20,668 |
|
Deferred income taxes |
|
|
14,105 |
|
|
|
|
92,507 |
|
Accrued interest |
|
|
5,074 |
|
|
|
|
9,612 |
|
Other current liabilities |
|
|
11,165 |
|
|
|
|
18,992 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total current liabilities |
|
|
290,527 |
|
|
|
|
296,159 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Notes payable, long-term debt and other obligations, less current portion |
|
|
209,261 |
|
|
|
|
210,301 |
|
Fair value of derivatives embedded within convertible debt |
|
|
77,548 |
|
|
|
|
77,245 |
|
Non-current employee benefits |
|
|
35,690 |
|
|
|
|
34,856 |
|
Deferred income taxes |
|
|
48,050 |
|
|
|
|
48,807 |
|
Other liabilities |
|
|
16,577 |
|
|
|
|
16,739 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total liabilities |
|
|
677,653 |
|
|
|
|
684,107 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Commitments and contingencies |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Stockholders equity: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Preferred stock, par value $1.00 per share, 10,000,000 shares authorized |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Common stock, par value $0.10 per share, 150,000,000 shares authorized,
69,108,075 and 69,107,320 shares issued and 66,014,825 and
and 66,014,070 shares outstanding |
|
|
6,601 |
|
|
|
|
6,601 |
|
Additional paid-in capital |
|
|
41,384 |
|
|
|
|
65,103 |
|
Retained earnings (accumulated deficit) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accumulated other comprehensive loss |
|
|
(29,555 |
) |
|
|
|
(25,242 |
) |
Less: 3,093,250 and 3,093,250 shares of common stock in treasury, at cost |
|
|
(12,857 |
) |
|
|
|
(12,857 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total stockholders equity |
|
|
5,573 |
|
|
|
|
33,605 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total liabilities and stockholders equity |
|
$ |
683,226 |
|
|
|
$ |
717,712 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The accompanying notes are an integral part
of the condensed consolidated financial statements.
-2-
VECTOR GROUP LTD. AND SUBSIDIARIES
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS
(Dollars in Thousands, Except Per Share Amounts)
Unaudited
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three Months |
|
|
|
Three Months |
|
|
|
Ended |
|
|
|
Ended |
|
|
|
March 31, 2009 |
|
|
|
March 31, 2008 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Revenues* |
|
$ |
121,216 |
|
|
|
$ |
132,205 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Expenses: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cost of goods sold* |
|
|
72,526 |
|
|
|
|
80,007 |
|
Operating, selling, administrative and general expenses |
|
|
21,530 |
|
|
|
|
24,157 |
|
Gain on brand transaction |
|
|
(5,000 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
Restructuring charges |
|
|
1,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating income |
|
|
31,160 |
|
|
|
|
28,041 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other income (expenses): |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interest and dividend income |
|
|
150 |
|
|
|
|
1,971 |
|
Interest expense |
|
|
(16,074 |
) |
|
|
|
(15,253 |
) |
Change in fair value of derivatives embedded within
convertible debt |
|
|
(303 |
) |
|
|
|
(2,444 |
) |
Impairment charges on investments |
|
|
(8,500 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
Equity (loss) income from non-consolidated real
estate businesses |
|
|
(995 |
) |
|
|
|
13,320 |
|
Other, net |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(573 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income before provision for income taxes |
|
|
5,438 |
|
|
|
|
25,062 |
|
Income tax expense |
|
|
2,338 |
|
|
|
|
10,755 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income |
|
$ |
3,100 |
|
|
|
$ |
14,307 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Per basic common share: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income applicable to common shares |
|
$ |
0.04 |
|
|
|
$ |
0.22 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Per diluted common share: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income applicable to common shares |
|
$ |
0.04 |
|
|
|
$ |
0.21 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash distributions and dividends declared per share |
|
$ |
0.40 |
|
|
|
$ |
0.38 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* |
|
Revenues and Cost of goods sold include excise taxes of $33,712 and $40,522, respectively. |
The accompanying notes are an integral part
of the condensed consolidated financial statements.
-3-
VECTOR GROUP LTD. AND SUBSIDIARIES
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF STOCKHOLDERS EQUITY
(Dollars in Thousands, Except Share Amounts)
Unaudited
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accumulated |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Common Stock |
|
|
|
Additional |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Paid-In |
|
|
|
Retained |
|
|
|
Comprehensive |
|
|
|
Treasury |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Shares |
|
|
Amount |
|
|
|
Capital |
|
|
|
Earnings |
|
|
|
Income (Loss) |
|
|
|
Stock |
|
|
|
Total |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance, December 31, 2008 |
|
|
|
66,014,070 |
|
|
$ |
6,601 |
|
|
|
$ |
65,103 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
|
$ |
(25,242 |
) |
|
|
$ |
(12,857 |
) |
|
|
$ |
33,605 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3,100 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3,100 |
|
|
Pension-related minimum liability adjustments,
net of taxes |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
418 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
418 |
|
|
Forward contract adjustments, net of taxes |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
9 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
9 |
|
|
Unrealized loss on investment securities,
net of taxes |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(4,740 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(4,740 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total other comprehensive income |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(4,313 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total comprehensive loss |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1,213 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Distributions and dividends on common stock |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(24,605 |
) |
|
|
|
(3,100 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(27,705 |
) |
|
Exercise of options |
|
|
|
755 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
10 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
10 |
|
|
Amortization of deferred compensation |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
876 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
876 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance, March 31, 2009 |
|
|
|
66,014,825 |
|
|
$ |
6,601 |
|
|
|
$ |
41,384 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
|
$ |
(29,555 |
) |
|
|
$ |
(12,857 |
) |
|
|
$ |
5,573 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The accompanying notes are an integral part
of the condensed consolidated financial statements.
-4-
VECTOR GROUP LTD. AND SUBSIDIARIES
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS
(Dollars in Thousands, Except Per Share Amounts)
Unaudited
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three Months |
|
|
|
Three Months |
|
|
|
Ended |
|
|
|
Ended |
|
|
|
March 31, 2009 |
|
|
|
March 31, 2008 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash provided by operating activities |
|
$ |
21,088 |
|
|
|
$ |
14,159 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash flows from investing activities: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Purchase of investment securities |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(5,182 |
) |
Proceeds from sale or liquidation of long-term investments. |
|
|
908 |
|
|
|
|
10 |
|
Purchase of mortgage receivable |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(21,445 |
) |
Distributions from non-consolidated real estate businesses. |
|
|
1,182 |
|
|
|
|
15,822 |
|
Increase in cash surrender value of life insurance policies |
|
|
(356 |
) |
|
|
|
(143 |
) |
Decrease (increase) in non-current restricted assets |
|
|
452 |
|
|
|
|
(109 |
) |
Capital expenditures |
|
|
(803 |
) |
|
|
|
(1,227 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash provided by (used in) investing activities |
|
|
1,383 |
|
|
|
|
(12,274 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash flows from financing activities: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Proceeds from debt issuance |
|
|
10 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Repayments of debt |
|
|
(1,604 |
) |
|
|
|
(1,501 |
) |
Deferred financing charges |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(99 |
) |
Borrowings under revolver |
|
|
123,724 |
|
|
|
|
128,429 |
|
Repayments on revolver |
|
|
(123,291 |
) |
|
|
|
(121,303 |
) |
Dividends and distributions on common stock |
|
|
(30,076 |
) |
|
|
|
(26,717 |
) |
Proceeds from exercise of options |
|
|
10 |
|
|
|
|
14 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash used in financing activities |
|
|
(31,227 |
) |
|
|
|
(21,177 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net decrease in cash and cash equivalents |
|
|
(8,756 |
) |
|
|
|
(19,292 |
) |
Cash and cash equivalents, beginning of period |
|
|
211,105 |
|
|
|
|
238,117 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents, end of period |
|
$ |
202,349 |
|
|
|
$ |
218,825 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The accompanying notes are an integral part
of the condensed consolidated financial statements.
-5-
VECTOR GROUP LTD.
NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(Dollars in Thousands, Except Per Share Amounts)
Unaudited
1. SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES
(a) Basis of Presentation:
The condensed consolidated financial statements of Vector Group Ltd. (the Company or
Vector) include the accounts of VGR Holding LLC (VGR Holding), Liggett Group LLC
(Liggett), Vector Tobacco Inc. (Vector Tobacco), Liggett Vector Brands Inc. (Liggett
Vector Brands), New Valley LLC (New Valley) and other less significant subsidiaries. All
significant intercompany balances and transactions have been eliminated.
Liggett is engaged in the manufacture and sale of cigarettes in the United States.
Vector Tobacco is engaged in the marketing of low nicotine and nicotine-free cigarette
products and the development of reduced risk cigarette products. New Valley is engaged in the
real estate business and is seeking to acquire additional operating companies and real estate
properties.
The interim condensed consolidated financial statements of the Company are unaudited and,
in the opinion of management, reflect all adjustments necessary (which are normal and
recurring) to state fairly the Companys consolidated financial position, results of
operations and cash flows. These condensed consolidated financial statements should be read
in conjunction with the consolidated financial statements and the notes thereto included in
the Companys Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2008 filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission. The consolidated results of operations for interim
periods should not be regarded as necessarily indicative of the results that may be expected
for the entire year.
(b) Distributions and Dividends on Common Stock:
The Company records distributions on its common stock as dividends in its condensed
consolidated statement of stockholders equity to the extent of retained earnings. Any
amounts exceeding retained earnings are recorded as a reduction to additional paid-in capital.
(c) Earnings Per Share (EPS):
Information concerning the Companys common stock has been adjusted to give retroactive
effect to the 5% stock dividend paid to Company stockholders on September 29, 2008. All per
share amounts have been presented as if the stock dividends had occurred on January 1, 2008.
-6-
VECTOR GROUP LTD.
NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Continued)
(Dollars in Thousands, Except Per Share Amounts)
Unaudited
The Company has stock option awards which provide for common stock dividends at the same
rate as paid on the common stock with respect to the shares underlying the unexercised portion
of the options. As a result, in its calculation of basic EPS for the three ended March 31,
2009 and 2008, the Company has adjusted its net income for the effect of its participating
securities as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three Months |
|
|
|
Three Months |
|
|
|
Ended |
|
|
|
Ended |
|
|
|
March 31, 2009 |
|
|
|
March 31, 2008 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income |
|
$ |
3,100 |
|
|
|
$ |
14,307 |
|
Income attributable to
participating securities |
|
|
(142 |
) |
|
|
|
(678 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income available to
common stockholders |
|
$ |
2,958 |
|
|
|
$ |
13,629 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Basic EPS is computed by dividing net income available to common stockholders by the
weighted-average number of shares outstanding.
Diluted EPS includes the dilutive effect of stock options, unvested restricted stock grants
and convertible securities. Diluted EPS is computed by dividing net income available to
common stockholders by the diluted weighted-average number of shares outstanding, which
includes dilutive non-vested restricted stock grants, stock options and convertible
securities.
Basic and diluted EPS were calculated using the following shares for the three months ended
March 31, 2009 and 2008:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three Months |
|
|
|
Three Months |
|
|
|
Ended |
|
|
|
Ended |
|
|
|
March 31, 2009 |
|
|
|
March 31, 2008 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weighted-average shares for basic EPS |
|
|
65,802,907 |
|
|
|
|
62,971,920 |
|
Plus incremental shares related to
stock options |
|
|
16,205 |
|
|
|
|
1,646,786 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weighted-average shares for fully diluted EPS |
|
|
65,819,112 |
|
|
|
|
64,618,706 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Companys non-vested restricted share grants contain rights to receive forfeitable
dividends, and thus are not participating securities requiring the two class method of
computing EPS.
The following stock options, non-vested restricted stock and shares issuable upon the
conversion of convertible debt were outstanding during the three months ended March 31, 2009
and 2008 but were not included in the computation of diluted EPS because the exercise prices
of the options and the per share expense associated with the restricted stock were greater
than the average market price of the common shares during the respective periods, and the
impact of common shares issuable under the convertible debt were anti-dilutive to EPS.
-7-
VECTOR GROUP LTD.
NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Continued)
(Dollars in Thousands, Except Per Share Amounts)
Unaudited
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three Months |
|
|
|
Three Months |
|
|
|
Ended |
|
|
|
Ended |
|
|
|
March 31, 2009 |
|
|
|
March 31, 2008 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Number of stock options |
|
|
632,378 |
|
|
|
|
226,741 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weighted-average exercise price |
|
$ |
18.31 |
|
|
|
$ |
24.26 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weighted-average shares of non-
vested restricted stock |
|
|
211,314 |
|
|
|
|
73,041 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weighted-average expense per share |
|
$ |
17.12 |
|
|
|
$ |
17.82 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weighted-average number of shares
issuable upon conversion of debt |
|
|
12,932,556 |
|
|
|
|
12,932,556 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weighted-average conversion price |
|
$ |
17.16 |
|
|
|
$ |
17.16 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(d) Comprehensive Income:
Other comprehensive income is a component of stockholders equity and includes such items as
the unrealized gains and losses on investment securities available for sale, forward foreign
contracts and minimum pension liability adjustments. The Companys comprehensive loss was
$1,213 for the three months ended March 31, 2009 and the Companys comprehensive income was
$10,981 for the same period in 2008.
(e) Fair Value of Derivatives Embedded within Convertible Debt:
The Company has estimated the fair market value of the embedded derivatives based principally
on the results of a valuation model. The estimated fair value of the derivatives embedded
within the convertible debt is based principally on the present value of future dividend
payments expected to be received by the convertible debt holders over the term of the debt.
The discount rate applied to the future cash flows is estimated based on a spread in the yield
of the Companys debt when compared to risk-free securities with the same duration; thus, a
readily determinable fair market value of the embedded derivatives is not available. The
valuation model assumes future dividend payments by the Company and utilizes interest rates and
credit spreads for secured to unsecured debt, unsecured to subordinated debt and subordinated
debt to preferred stock to determine the fair value of the derivatives embedded within the
convertible debt. The valuation also considers other items, including current and future
dividends and the volatility of Vectors stock price. The range of estimated fair market
values of the Companys embedded derivatives was between $78,879 and $76,266. The Company
recorded the fair market value of its embedded derivatives at the midpoint of the inputs at
$77,548 as of March 31, 2009. The estimated fair market value of the Companys embedded
derivatives could change significantly based on future market conditions. (See Note 6.)
(f) Capital and Credit Market Crisis
As the capital and credit market crisis has worsened, the Company has performed additional
assessments to determine the impact, if any, of recent market developments, on the Companys
consolidated condensed financial statements. The Companys additional assessments have included
a review of access to liquidity in the capital and credit markets, counterparty
creditworthiness, value of the Companys investments (including long-term investments, mortgage
receivable and employee benefit plans) and macroeconomic conditions. The recent unprecedented
volatility in capital and credit markets may create additional risks in the upcoming months and
possibly years and the Company will continue to perform additional assessments to determine the
impact, if any, on the Companys condensed consolidated financial statements. Thus, future
impairment charges may occur.
-8-
VECTOR GROUP LTD.
NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Continued)
(Dollars in Thousands, Except Per Share Amounts)
Unaudited
On a quarterly basis, the Company evaluates its investments to determine whether an impairment
has occurred. If so, the Company also makes a determination of whether such impairment is
considered temporary or other-than-temporary. The Company believes that the assessment of
temporary or other-than-temporary impairment is facts and circumstances driven. However, among
the matters that are considered in making such a determination are the period of time the
investment has remained below its cost or carrying value, the likelihood of recovery given the
reason for the decrease in market value and the Companys original expected holding period of
the investment.
(g) Contingencies:
The Company records 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 8, legal proceedings covering a wide range of matters are pending or
threatened in various jurisdictions against Liggett.
The Company and its subsidiaries record provisions in their consolidated financial statements
for pending litigation when they determine that an unfavorable outcome is probable and the
amount of loss can be reasonably estimated. Management is unable to make a reasonable estimate
with respect to the amount or range of loss that could result from an unfavorable outcome of
pending tobacco-related litigation or the costs of defending such cases, and the Company has
not provided any amounts in its consolidated financial statements for unfavorable outcomes, if
any, except in the Davis case. Litigation is subject to many uncertainties, and 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 tobacco-related litigation.
(h) Restricted Stock Award:
On April 7, 2009, the President of the Company was awarded a restricted stock grant of 500,000
shares of Vectors common stock pursuant to Vectors Amended and Restated 1999 Long-Term
Incentive Plan. Under the terms of the award, one-fifth of the shares vest on September 15,
2010, with an additional one-fifth vesting on each of the four succeeding one-year
anniversaries of the first vesting date through September 15, 2014. In the event that his
employment with the Company is terminated for any reason other than his death, his disability
or a change of control (as defined in this Restricted Share Agreement) of the Company, any
remaining balance of the shares not previously vested will be forfeited by him. The fair market
value of the restricted shares on the date of grant was $6,468 which will be amortized over the
vesting period as a charge to compensation expense.
(i) New Accounting Pronouncements:
On January 1, 2008, Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 157, Fair Value
Measurements (SFAS No. 157) for financial assets and financial liabilities became effective
for the Company. SFAS No. 157 does not require any new fair value measurements but provides a
definition of fair value, establishes a framework for measuring fair value and expands
disclosure about fair value measurements. On January 1, 2009, the Company adopted SFAS No. 157
as it relates to nonfinancial assets and nonfinancial liabilities that are not recognized or
disclosed at fair value in the financial statements on at least an annual basis. SFAS No. 157
defines fair value, establishes a framework for measuring fair value in accounting principles
generally accepted in the United States of America (GAAP), and expands disclosures about fair
value measurements. The provisions of this standard apply to other accounting pronouncements
that require or permit fair value measurements and are to be applied prospectively with limited
exceptions. The provisions of SFAS No. 157 were applied when the fair value measurement of two
nonfinancial assets and one nonfinancial liability resulted in an impairment as of March 31,
2009. (See Note 11.)
On January 1, 2009, SFAS No. 141(R), a revised version of SFAS No. 141, Business Combinations
and FSP No. 141(R)-1, Accounting for Assets Acquired and Liabilities Assumed in a Business
Combination that Arise from Contingencies became effective for the Company. The revision is
intended to simplify existing guidance and converge rulemaking under U.S. GAAP with
international accounting rules. The standard did not have a material impact on the Companys
condensed consolidated financial statements.
-9-
VECTOR GROUP LTD.
NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Continued)
(Dollars in Thousands, Except Per Share Amounts)
Unaudited
On January 1, 2009, SFAS No. 161, Disclosures about Derivative Instruments and Hedging
Activities-an amendment of FASB Statement No. 133 became effective for the Company. SFAS No.
161 seeks qualitative disclosures about the objectives and strategies for using derivatives,
quantitative data about the fair value of and gains and losses on derivative contracts, and
details of credit-risk-related contingent features in hedged positions. SFAS No. 161 also seeks
enhanced disclosure around derivative instruments in financial statements, accounting under
SFAS No. 133, Accounting for Derivative Instruments and Hedging Activities, and how hedges
affect an entitys financial position, financial performance and cash flows. The adoption of
SFAS No. 161 did not have a material impact on the Companys condensed consolidated financial
statements.
On January 1. 2009, FASB Staff Position No. APB 14-1, Accounting for Convertible Debt
Instruments That May Be Settled in Cash upon Conversion (Including Partial Cash Settlement)
(FSP No. APB 14-1) became effective for the Company. The adoption of FSP No. APB 14-1 had no
impact on the Companys condensed consolidated financial statements.
On January 1, 2009, FSP No. EITF 03-6-1, Determining Whether Instruments Granted in
Share-Based Payment Transactions Are Participating Securities, (FSP EITF 03-6-1) became
effective for the Company. FSP EITF 03-6-1 states that unvested share-based payment awards that
contain nonforfeitable rights to dividends or dividend equivalents (whether paid or unpaid) are
participating securities and shall be included in the computation of earnings per share
pursuant to the two-class method. The adoption of FSP EITF 03-6-1 had no impact on the
Companys condensed consolidated financial statements.
In April 2009, the FASB issued FSP SFAS 157-4, Determining Fair Value When the Volume and
Level of Activity for the Asset or Liability Have Significantly Decreased and Identifying
Transactions that are not Orderly. FSP FAS No. 157-4 clarifies the methodology used to
determine fair value when there is no active market or where the price inputs being used
represent distressed sales. FSP FAS No. 157-4 also reaffirms the objective of fair value
measurement, as stated in FAS No. 157, Fair Value Measurements, which is to reflect how much
an asset would be sold for in an orderly transaction. It also reaffirms the need to use
judgment to determine if a formerly active market has become inactive, as well as to determine
fair values when markets have become inactive. The guidance is effective for financial
statement purposes for interim and annual financial statements issued for fiscal periods ending
after June 15, 2009. The Company will adopt the provisions of FSP FAS No. 157-4 effective
April 1, 2009, which the Company does not expect to have a material impact on the condensed
consolidated financial statements.
In April 2009, FASB issued FSP FAS No. 115-2 and FAS 124-2, Recognition and Presentation of
Other-Than-Temporary Impairments (FSP No. 115-2 and FAS No. 124-2). FSP FAS No. 115-2 and
FAS No. 124-2 modifies the other-than-temporary impairment guidance for debt securities through
increased consistency in the timing of impairment recognition and enhanced disclosures related
to the credit and noncredit components of impaired debt securities that are not expected to be
sold. In addition, increased disclosures are required for both debt and equity securities
regarding expected cash flows, credit losses, and an aging of securities with unrealized
losses. FSP FAS No. 115-2 and FAS No. 124-2 will be effective for interim and annual reporting
periods that end after June 15, 2009. The Company will adopt the provisions of FSP FAS No.
115-2 and FAS No. 124-2 effective April 1, 2009, which the Company does not expect to have a
material impact on the condensed consolidated financial statements.
In April 2009, FASB issued FSP FAS No. 107-1 and APB Opinion No. 28-1, Interim Disclosures
about Fair Value of Financial Instruments (FSP FAS No. 107-1 and APB Opinion No. 28-1). FSP
FAS No. 107-1 and APB Opinion No. 28-1 requires fair value disclosures for financial
instruments that are not reflected in the condensed consolidated balance sheets at fair value.
Prior to the issuance of FSP FAS No. 107-1 and APB Opinion No. 28-1, the fair values of those
assets and liabilities were disclosed only once each year. With the issuance of FSP FAS No.
107-1 and APB Opinion No. 28-1, the Company will now be required to disclose this information
on a quarterly basis, providing quantitative and qualitative information about fair value
estimates for all financial instruments not measured in the condensed consolidated balance
sheets at fair value. FSP FAS No. 107-1 and APB Opinion No. 28-1 will be effective for interim
reporting periods that end after June 15, 2009. The Company will adopt the disclosure
requirements in the June 30, 2009 condensed consolidated financial statements.
-10-
VECTOR GROUP LTD.
NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Continued)
(Dollars in Thousands, Except Per Share Amounts)
Unaudited
In December 2008, the FASB issued FSP SFAS 132(R)-1 Employers Disclosures about
Postretirement Benefit Plan Assets. This FSP amends the disclosure requirements for
employers disclosure of plan assets for defined
benefit pensions and other postretirement plans. The objective of this FSP is to provide users
of financial statements with an understanding of how investment allocation decisions are made,
the major categories of plan assets held by the plans, the inputs and valuation techniques used
to measure the fair value of plan assets, significant concentration of risk within the
companys plan assets, and for fair value measurements determined using significant
unobservable inputs a reconciliation of changes between the beginning and ending balances. FSP
SFAS 132(R)-1 is effective for fiscal years ending after December 15, 2009. The Company will
adopt the new disclosure requirements in the 2009 annual reporting period.
2. RESTRUCTURING
In March 2009, Vector Tobacco eliminated nine full-time positions in connection with the
decision by the Companys Board of Directors in 2006 to discontinue the genetics operation and
not to pursue FDA approval of QUEST as a smoking cessation aide, due to the projected
significant additional time and expense involved in seeking such approval.
The Company recognized pre-tax restructuring charges of $1,000, during the first quarter of
2009. The restructuring charges primarily related to employee severance and benefit costs.
The only remaining component of the 2004 Liggett Vector Brands restructuring at March 31, 2009
and December 31, 2008 was contract termination and exit costs of $418 and $461, respectively.
Approximately $43 was utilized during the three months ended March 31, 2009.
3. 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 income
taxes. The components of investment securities available for sale at March 31, 2009 were as
follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gross |
|
|
Gross |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Unrealized |
|
|
Unrealized |
|
|
Fair |
|
|
|
Cost |
|
|
Gain |
|
|
Loss |
|
|
Value |
|
|
Marketable equity securities |
|
$ |
28,957 |
|
|
$ |
2,893 |
|
|
$ |
(7,354 |
) |
|
$ |
24,496 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Investment securities available for sale as of March 31, 2009 and December 31, 2008 include the
following:
|
|
|
13,888,889 shares of Ladenburg Thalmann Financial Services Inc. common
stock, carried at $7,361 and $10,000, respectively; |
|
|
|
|
5,057,110 shares of Opko Health Inc. common stock, carried at $4,956 and
$8,193, respectively; and |
|
|
|
|
2,259,796 shares of Cardo Medical, Inc. common stock, carried at $3,389
and $3,277, respectively. |
-11-
VECTOR GROUP LTD.
NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Continued)
(Dollars in Thousands, Except Per Share Amounts)
Unaudited
In October 2008, the Company purchased 320,000 shares of Castle Brands, Inc. (Castle Brands)
Series A Convertible Preferred Stock for $4,000. Castle Brands is a publicly traded developer
and importer of premium branded spirits. The purchase was accounted for at historical cost and
included with Other Assets on the condensed balance sheet at December 31, 2008. In January
2009, the Series A Preferred Stock of Castle Brands were converted into 11,428,576 shares of
Common Stock. Effective with the conversion, the Castle Brands shares have been accounted for
as an investment held for sale. These shares were carried at $2,286 as of March 31, 2009.
4. INVENTORIES
Inventories consist of:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
March 31, |
|
|
|
December 31, |
|
|
|
2009 |
|
|
|
2008 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Leaf tobacco |
|
$ |
50,479 |
|
|
|
$ |
48,880 |
|
Other raw materials |
|
|
5,908 |
|
|
|
|
5,128 |
|
Work-in-process |
|
|
839 |
|
|
|
|
314 |
|
Finished goods |
|
|
45,711 |
|
|
|
|
46,202 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Inventories at current cost |
|
|
102,937 |
|
|
|
|
100,524 |
|
LIFO adjustments |
|
|
(11,391 |
) |
|
|
|
(7,943 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
91,546 |
|
|
|
$ |
92,581 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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 commitment date. At March 31, 2009, Liggett had leaf tobacco
purchase commitments of approximately $21,500. There were no leaf tobacco purchase commitments
at Vector Tobacco at that date. During 2007, the Company entered into a single source supply
agreement for fire safe cigarette paper through 2012.
The Company capitalizes the incremental prepaid cost of the Master Settlement Agreement in
ending inventory. For the three months ended March 31, 2009 and 2008, the Companys MSA
expense was increased by approximately $650 for 2008 and reduced by approximately $1,300 for
2007, respectively, as a result of a change in estimate to the MSA assessment.
LIFO inventories represent approximately 96% and 95% of total inventories at March 31, 2009 and
December 31, 2008, respectively.
5. LONG-TERM INVESTMENTS
Long-term investments consist of investments in the following:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
March 31, 2009 |
|
|
December 31, 2008 |
|
|
|
Carrying |
|
|
Fair |
|
|
Carrying |
|
|
Fair |
|
|
|
Value |
|
|
Value |
|
|
Value |
|
|
Value |
|
|
Investment partnerships
accounted for at cost |
|
$ |
51,118 |
|
|
$ |
54,640 |
|
|
$ |
51,118 |
|
|
$ |
54,997 |
|
-12-
VECTOR GROUP LTD.
NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Continued)
(Dollars in Thousands, Except Per Share Amounts)
Unaudited
The principal business of these investment partnerships is investing in investment securities
and real estate. The estimated fair value of the investment partnerships was provided by the
partnerships based on the indicated market values of the underlying assets or investment
portfolio. The investments in these investment 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 long-term investments are carried on the condensed consolidated balance sheet at cost. The
fair value determination disclosed above would be classified as Level 3 under the SFAS 157
hierarchy disclosed in Note 11 if such assets were recorded on the condensed consolidated
balance sheet at fair value. The fair values were determined based on unobservable inputs and
were based on company assumptions, and information obtained from the partnerships based on the
indicated market values of the underlying assets of the investment portfolio.
The changes in the fair value of these investments as of March 31, 2009 were as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Investment |
|
|
|
Partnerships |
|
|
|
Accounted for |
|
|
|
at Cost |
|
|
Balance as of January 1, 2009 |
|
$ |
54,997 |
|
Unrealized loss on long-term
investments |
|
|
(357 |
) |
Realized loss on long-term
investments |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance as of March 31, 2009 |
|
$ |
54,640 |
|
|
|
|
|
The changes in the fair value of these investments as of March 31, 2008 were as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Investment |
|
|
Investment |
|
|
|
Partnerships |
|
|
Partnerships |
|
|
|
Accounted for at |
|
|
Accounted for on |
|
|
|
Cost |
|
|
the Equity Method |
|
|
Balance as of January 1, 2008 |
|
$ |
89,007 |
|
|
$ |
10,495 |
|
Unrealized loss on long-term investments |
|
|
(2,034 |
) |
|
|
(675 |
) |
Realized loss on long-term investments |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(567 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance as of March 31, 2008 |
|
$ |
86,973 |
|
|
$ |
9,253 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Because the capital and credit market crisis has continued to worsen, the Company will continue
to perform additional assessments to determine the impact, if any, on the Companys condensed
consolidated financial statements. Thus, future impairment charges may occur.
In the future, the Company may invest in other investments, including limited partnerships,
real estate investments, equity securities, debt securities, derivatives and certificates of
deposit, depending on risk factors and potential rates of return.
-13-
VECTOR GROUP LTD.
NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Continued)
(Dollars in Thousands, Except Per Share Amounts)
Unaudited
6. NOTES PAYABLE, LONG-TERM DEBT AND OTHER OBLIGATIONS
Notes payable, long-term debt and other obligations consist of:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
March 31, |
|
|
|
December 31, |
|
|
|
2009 |
|
|
|
2008 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Vector: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
11% Senior Secured Notes due 2015 |
|
$ |
165,000 |
|
|
|
$ |
165,000 |
|
3.875% Variable Interest Senior Convertible Debentures due
2026, net of unamortized discount of $83,888 and $83,993* |
|
|
26,112 |
|
|
|
|
26,007 |
|
5% Variable Interest Senior Convertible Notes due 2011,
net of unamortized net discount of $36,989 and $39,565* |
|
|
74,875 |
|
|
|
|
72,299 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Liggett: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Revolving credit facility |
|
|
19,948 |
|
|
|
|
19,515 |
|
Term loan under credit facility |
|
|
7,155 |
|
|
|
|
7,290 |
|
Equipment loans |
|
|
7,273 |
|
|
|
|
8,307 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
V.T. Aviation: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Note payable |
|
|
4,924 |
|
|
|
|
5,266 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
VGR Aviation: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Note payable |
|
|
3,963 |
|
|
|
|
4,053 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other |
|
|
70 |
|
|
|
|
62 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total notes payable, long-term debt and other obligations |
|
|
309,320 |
|
|
|
|
307,799 |
|
Less: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Current maturities |
|
|
(100,059 |
) |
|
|
|
(97,498 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Amount due after one year |
|
$ |
209,261 |
|
|
|
$ |
210,301 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* |
|
The fair value of the derivatives embedded within the 3.875% Variable Interest
Senior Convertible Debentures ($53,581 at March 31, 2009 and $51,829 at December 31,
2008) and the 5% Variable Interest Senior Convertible Notes ($23,967 at March 31,
2009 and $25,416 at December 31, 2008) is separately classified as a derivative
liability in the condensed consolidated balance sheets. |
11% Senior Secured Notes due 2015 Vector:
In August 2007, the Company sold $165,000 in 11% Senior Secured Notes
due 2015 (the Senior Secured Notes) in a private offering to
qualified institutional investors in accordance with Rule 144A of the
Securities Act of 1933. On May 28, 2008, the Company completed an
offer to exchange the Senior Secured Notes for an equal amount of
newly issued 11% Senior Secured Notes due 2015. The new Senior Secured
Notes have substantially the same terms as the original notes, except
that the new Senior Secured Notes have been registered under the
Securities Act.
The indenture contains covenants that restrict the payment of
dividends by the Company if the Companys consolidated earnings before
interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization (Consolidated
EBITDA), as defined in the indenture, for the most recently ended
four full quarters is less than $50,000. The indenture also restricts
the incurrence of debt if the Companys Leverage Ratio and its Secured
Leverage Ratio, as defined in the indenture, exceed 3.0 and 1.5,
respectively. The Companys Leverage Ratio is defined in the
indenture as the ratio of the Companys and the guaranteeing
subsidiaries total debt less the fair market value of the Companys
cash, investments in marketable securities and long-term investments
to Consolidated EBITDA, as defined in the indenture. The Companys
Secured Leverage Ratio is defined in the indenture in the same manner
as the Leverage Ratio, except that secured indebtedness is substituted
for indebtedness.
-14-
VECTOR GROUP LTD.
NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Continued)
(Dollars in Thousands, Except Per Share Amounts)
Unaudited
The following table summarizes the requirements of these financial covenants and the results of
the calculation, as defined by the indenture.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Indenture |
|
March 31, |
|
December 31, |
Covenant |
|
Requirement |
|
2009 |
|
2008 |
|
Consolidated EBITDA, as defined |
|
$ |
50,000 |
|
|
$ |
157,035 |
|
|
$ |
154,053 |
|
Leverage ratio, as defined |
|
<3.0 to 1 |
|
|
0.2 to 1 |
|
|
|
0.1 to 1 |
|
Secured leverage ratio, as defined |
|
<1.5 to 1 |
|
Negative |
|
Negative |
Variable Interest Senior Convertible Debt Vector:
Vector has issued two series of variable interest senior convertible debt. Both series
of debt pay interest on a quarterly basis at a stated rate plus an additional amount of
interest on each payment date. The additional amount is based on the amount of cash dividends
paid during the prior three-month period ending on the record date for such interest payment
multiplied by the total number of shares of its common stock into which the debt would be
convertible on such record date.
A summary of non-cash interest expense associated with the amortization of the debt discount
created by the embedded derivative liability associated with the Companys variable interest
senior convertible debt for the three months ended March 31, 2009 and 2008 is as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three Months |
|
|
|
Three Months |
|
|
|
Ended |
|
|
|
Ended |
|
|
|
March 31, 2009 |
|
|
|
March 31, 2008 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3.875% convertible debentures |
|
$ |
112 |
|
|
|
$ |
90 |
|
5% convertible notes |
|
|
1,657 |
|
|
|
|
1,188 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interest expense associated with
embedded derivatives |
|
$ |
1,769 |
|
|
|
$ |
1,278 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A summary of non-cash changes in fair value of derivatives embedded within convertible debt is
as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three Months |
|
|
|
Three Months |
|
|
|
Ended |
|
|
|
Ended |
|
|
|
March 31, 2009 |
|
|
|
March 31, 2008 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3.875% convertible debentures |
|
$ |
(1,752 |
) |
|
|
$ |
(3,250 |
) |
5% convertible notes |
|
|
1,449 |
|
|
|
|
806 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Loss on changes in fair value of
derivatives
embedded within
convertible debt |
|
$ |
(303 |
) |
|
|
$ |
(2,444 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The following table reconciles the fair value of derivatives embedded within convertible debt
at March 31, 2009.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3.875% |
|
|
|
5% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Convertible |
|
|
|
Convertible |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Debentures |
|
|
|
Notes |
|
|
|
Total |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance at December 31, 2008 |
|
$ |
51,829 |
|
|
|
$ |
25,416 |
|
|
|
$ |
77,245 |
|
Loss (gain) from changes in fair
value of embedded derivatives |
|
|
1,752 |
|
|
|
|
(1,449 |
) |
|
|
|
303 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance at March 31, 2009 |
|
$ |
53,581 |
|
|
|
$ |
23,967 |
|
|
|
$ |
77,548 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
-15-
VECTOR GROUP LTD.
NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Continued)
(Dollars in Thousands, Except Per Share Amounts)
Unaudited
Beneficial Conversion Feature on Variable Interest Senior Convertible Debt:
A summary of non-cash interest expense associated with the amortization of the debt discount
created by the beneficial conversion feature on the Companys variable interest senior
convertible debt for the three months ended March 31, 2009 and 2008 is as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three Months |
|
|
|
Three Months |
|
|
|
Ended |
|
|
|
Ended |
|
|
|
March 31, 2009 |
|
|
|
March 31, 2008 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Amortization
of beneficial conversion feature: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3.875% convertible debentures |
|
$ |
(7 |
) |
|
|
$ |
(8 |
) |
5% convertible notes |
|
|
919 |
|
|
|
|
656 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interest expense associated with
beneficial conversion feature |
|
$ |
912 |
|
|
|
$ |
648 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Unamortized Debt Discount:
The following table reconciles unamortized debt discount at March 31, 2009:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3.875% |
|
|
|
5% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Convertible |
|
|
|
Convertible |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Debentures |
|
|
|
Notes |
|
|
|
Total |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance at December 31, 2008 |
|
$ |
83,993 |
|
|
|
$ |
39,565 |
|
|
|
$ |
123,558 |
|
Amortization of embedded derivatives |
|
|
(112 |
) |
|
|
|
(1,657 |
) |
|
|
|
(1,769 |
) |
Amortization of beneficial conversion feature |
|
|
7 |
|
|
|
|
(919 |
) |
|
|
|
(912 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance at March 31, 2009 |
|
$ |
83,888 |
|
|
|
$ |
36,989 |
|
|
|
$ |
120,877 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Revolving Credit Facility Liggett:
Liggett has a $50,000 credit facility with Wachovia Bank, N.A. under which $19,948 was
outstanding at March 31, 2009. Availability as determined under the facility was approximately
$12,900 based on eligible collateral at March 31, 2009.
5% Variable Interest Senior Convertible Notes Due November 2011:
Between November 2004 and April 2005, the Company sold $111,864 of its 5% Variable Interest
Senior Convertible Notes due November 15, 2011 (the 5% Notes). The Company must redeem 12.5%
of the total aggregate principal amount of the 5% Notes outstanding on November 15, 2009. In
addition to such redemption amount, the Company will also redeem on November 15, 2009 and at
the end of each interest accrual period thereafter an additional amount, if any, of the 5%
Notes necessary to prevent the 5% Notes from being treated as an Applicable High Yield
Discount Obligation under the Internal Revenue Code. The holders of the 5% Notes will have the
option on November 15, 2009 to require the Company to repurchase some or all of their remaining
5% Notes. The redemption price for such redemptions will equal 100% of the principal amount of
the 5% Notes plus accrued interest. If a fundamental change (as defined in the indenture)
occurs, the Company will be required to offer to repurchase the 5% Notes at 100% of their
principal amount, plus accrued interest and, under certain circumstances, a make-whole
premium.
-16-
VECTOR GROUP LTD.
NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Continued)
(Dollars in Thousands, Except Per Share Amounts)
Unaudited
6.75% Variable Interest Senior Convertible Notes due 2014:
On May 11, 2009, the Company issued in a private placement $50,000 of Variable Interest
Senior Convertible Notes due 2014. The purchase price was paid in cash ($38,225) and by
tendering $11,005 principal amount of the 5% Notes, valued at 107% of principal amount. The
Company will use the net proceeds of the offering for general corporate purposes. The notes
will pay interest (Total Interest) on a quarterly basis at a rate of 3.75% per annum plus
additional interest, which is based on the amount of cash dividends paid during the prior
three-month period ending on the record date for such interest payment multiplied by the total
number of shares of its common stock into which the debt will be convertible on such record
date. Notwithstanding the foregoing, however, the interest payable on each interest payment
date shall be the higher of (i) the Total Interest and (ii) 6.75% per annum. The notes are
convertible into the Companys common stock at the holders option. The conversion price of
$15.04 per share is subject to adjustment for various events, including the issuance of stock
dividends. The notes will mature on November 15, 2014. The Company will redeem on May 11,
2014 and at the end of 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. If a fundamental change (as defined in
the indenture) occurs, the Company will be required to offer to repurchase the notes at 100%
of their principal amount, plus accrued interest.
The
purchaser of these notes is an entity affiliated with
Dr. Phillip Frost, who, prior to the consummation of the sale,
may have been deemed to beneficially own approximately 8.1% of the Companys common stock.
Scheduled Maturities:
Scheduled maturities of long-term debt as of March 31, 2009 are as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Unamortized |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Principal |
|
|
Discount |
|
|
Net |
|
Year Ending
December 31: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2009 |
|
|
135,922 |
|
|
|
36,989 |
|
|
|
98,933 |
|
2010 |
|
|
4,422 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4,422 |
|
2011 |
|
|
16,126 |
|
|
|
8,389 |
|
|
|
7,737 |
|
2012 |
|
|
103,211 |
|
|
|
75,499 |
|
|
|
27,712 |
|
2013 |
|
|
5,516 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5,516 |
|
Thereafter |
|
|
165,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
165,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total |
|
$ |
430,197 |
|
|
$ |
120,877 |
|
|
$ |
309,320 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The scheduled maturities of $135,922 (principal amount) in 2009 include $97,881 (principal
amount), which may be required to be redeemed in 2009 in accordance with the terms of its 5%
Notes. The scheduled maturities of $103,211 (principal amount) in 2012 reflect $99,000
(principal amount), which may be required to be redeemed in 2012 in accordance with the terms
of its 3.875% Variable Interest Senior Convertible Debentures due 2026.
The Company believes that it will continue to meet its liquidity requirements through the next
12 months. The Companys corporate expenditures (exclusive of Liggett, Vector Research, Vector
Tobacco and New Valley) and other potential liquidity requirements over the next 12 months
include cash interest expense of approximately $53,500, dividends on
its outstanding common
shares (currently at an annual rate of approximately $116,500), a payment of a retirement
benefit under its Supplemental Retirement Plan (SERP) in July 2009 to its former Executive
Chairman of approximately $20,900, the mandatory redemption by November 15, 2009 of
approximately $12,600 of the outstanding principal amount of its 5% Notes, and the possible
redemption of an additional approximately $88,250 principal amount of the 5% Notes as a result
of an option by the holders to require the Company to repurchase some or all of the remaining
principal amount of the 5% Notes on November 15, 2009, and other corporate expenses and taxes,
including a tax payment of approximately $75,500 in connection with the Philip Morris brands
transaction.
In order to meet the above liquidity requirements as well as other anticipated liquidity needs
in the normal course of business, the Company had cash and cash equivalents of approximately
$202,000, investment securities available for sale of approximately $24,500, long-term
investments with an estimated value of approximately $55,000 and availability under Liggetts
credit facility of approximately $12,900 at March 31, 2009. Management currently anticipates
that these amounts, as well as expected cash flows from its operations and the proceeds from the
private placement in May 2009 of convertible notes, should be sufficient to meet the Companys
liquidity needs over the next 12 months.
-17-
VECTOR GROUP LTD.
NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Continued)
(Dollars in Thousands, Except Per Share Amounts)
Unaudited
In the event the Companys existing cash and cash equivalents, cash flows from operations and
the proceeds from the private placement are not sufficient to meet its liquidity needs over the
next 12 months, the Company has the ability to take other actions to provide the liquidity
needed over the next 12 months. These actions may include, among other things, additional debt
or equity financing, which in the current economic environment may not be available or may only
be available at an increased cost; incenting the holders of its 5% Notes, prior to November 15,
2009, when the holders have the option to require redemption of their Notes, to convert such
Notes or to modify the optional redemption terms, through issuance of additional shares of its
common stock or cash payments; modifying its dividend policy (which would also reduce the amount
of cash interest due on the Companys convertible debt); and selling some or all of its
investment securities and long-term investments, the proceeds from which may be impacted by the
Companys ability to liquidate such investments. No assurances can be provided that the above
measures can be achieved.
7. EMPLOYEE BENEFIT PLANS
Defined Benefit and Postretirement Plans:
Net periodic benefit cost for the Companys pension and other postretirement benefit plans for
the three months ended March 31, 2009 and 2008 consists of the following:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other |
|
|
|
Pension Benefits |
|
|
|
Postretirement Benefits |
|
|
|
Three Months Ended |
|
|
|
Three Months Ended |
|
|
|
March 31, |
|
|
|
March 31, |
|
|
|
March 31, |
|
|
|
March 31, |
|
|
|
2009 |
|
|
|
2008 |
|
|
|
2009 |
|
|
|
2008 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Service cost benefits earned
during the period |
|
$ |
330 |
|
|
|
$ |
1,035 |
|
|
|
$ |
4 |
|
|
|
$ |
4 |
|
Interest cost on projected benefit
obligation |
|
|
2,346 |
|
|
|
|
2,381 |
|
|
|
|
142 |
|
|
|
|
148 |
|
Expected return on plan assets |
|
|
(1,954 |
) |
|
|
|
(3,036 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Amortization of prior service cost |
|
|
200 |
|
|
|
|
350 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Amortization of net actuarial loss |
|
|
534 |
|
|
|
|
25 |
|
|
|
|
(41 |
) |
|
|
|
(45 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net expense |
|
$ |
1,456 |
|
|
|
$ |
755 |
|
|
|
$ |
105 |
|
|
|
$ |
107 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The increase of $701 in the Companys pension expense for the three months ended March 31, 2009 was
the result of increased defined benefit expense at the Liggett segment of approximately $1,600 due
primarily to the amortization of losses experienced in 2008 on the investment portfolio underlying
Liggetts defined benefit plans. The amount was offset by lower expenses of approximately $900 at
the corporate segment due to the retirement of our former Executive
Chairman on December 30, 2008. The Company did not make contributions to its pension benefits plans for the three months ended
March 31, 2009 and does not anticipate making any contributions to such plans in 2009. The
Company anticipates paying approximately $750 in other postretirement benefits in 2009.
-18-
VECTOR GROUP LTD.
NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Continued)
(Dollars in Thousands, Except Per Share Amounts)
Unaudited
8. CONTINGENCIES
Tobacco-Related Litigation:
Overview
Since 1954, Liggett and other United States cigarette manufacturers have been named as
defendants in numerous direct, third-party and purported class 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. New cases continue to be
commenced against Liggett and other cigarette manufacturers. The cases generally fall into the
following categories: (i) smoking and health cases alleging personal injury brought on behalf
of individual plaintiffs (Individual Actions); (ii) smoking and health purporting to be
brought on behalf of a class of individual plaintiffs cases primarily alleging personal injury
or seeking court-supervised programs for ongoing medical monitoring as well as cases alleging
the use of the terms lights and/or ultra lights constitutes a deceptive and unfair trade
practice, common law fraud or violation of federal law, 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, the costs associated with defending
these cases and the risks relating 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.
Liggett incurred legal expenses and other litigation costs totaling approximately $1,387 and
$1,363, for the three months ended March 31, 2009 and 2008 respectively.
The Company and its subsidiaries record provisions in their consolidated financial statements
for pending litigation when they determine that an unfavorable outcome is probable and the
amount of loss can be reasonably estimated. At the present time, while it is reasonably
possible that an unfavorable outcome in a case may occur, except as discussed elsewhere in this
note: (i) management has concluded that it is not probable that a loss has been incurred in any
of the pending tobacco-related cases; or (ii) management is unable to estimate the possible
loss or range of loss that could result from an unfavorable outcome of any of the pending
tobacco-related cases and, therefore, management has not provided any amounts in the
consolidated financial statements for unfavorable outcomes, if any.
Individual Actions
As of March 31, 2009, there were 39 individual cases pending against Liggett and/or the
Company, 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. In addition, there were approximately
3,200 Engle progeny cases (defined below) pending against Liggett and/or the Company, in
state and federal courts in Florida, and approximately 100 individual cases pending in
West Virginia state court as part of a consolidated action. The following table lists the
number of individual cases by state that are pending against Liggett or its affiliates as
of March 31, 2009 (excluding Engle progeny cases and the cases consolidated in West
Virginia):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Number |
State |
|
of Cases |
Florida |
|
|
14 |
|
New York |
|
|
10 |
|
Louisiana |
|
|
5 |
|
Maryland |
|
|
4 |
|
West Virginia |
|
|
2 |
|
District of Columbia |
|
|
1 |
|
Mississippi |
|
|
1 |
|
Missouri |
|
|
1 |
|
Ohio |
|
|
1 |
|
-19-
VECTOR GROUP LTD.
NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Continued)
(Dollars in Thousands, Except Per Share Amounts)
Unaudited
Liggett Only Cases. There are currently six cases pending where Liggett is the only tobacco
company defendant. In April 2004, in Davis v. Liggett Group, a Florida state court jury awarded
compensatory damages of $540 against Liggett, plus interest. In addition, the court awarded
plaintiffs counsel legal fees of $752. Liggett appealed both the compensatory and the legal
fee awards. In October 2007, the compensatory award was affirmed by the Fourth District Court
of Appeal and, thereafter, was paid by Liggett. In March 2008, the Fourth District Court of
Appeal reversed and remanded the legal fee award for further proceedings in the trial court.
The Company has accrued approximately $1,499 for plaintiffs claim for attorneys fees and
costs. In Ferlanti v. Liggett Group, in February 2009, a Florida state court jury awarded
compensatory damages of $1,200 against Liggett, but found that the plaintiff was 40% at fault.
Therefore, plaintiff was awarded $720 in compensatory damages plus $96 in expenses. Liggett has
appealed the award. On May 1, 2009, the court granted plaintiffs motion for an award of
attorneys fees but the amount has yet to be determined. Punitive damages were not awarded.
Although commenced as an Engle progeny case, this case was tried as an individual case after
the jury found that plaintiff was not a member of the former Engle class. In Hausrath v.
Philip Morris, a case pending in New York state court, plaintiffs recently dismissed all
defendants other than Liggett. The other three individual actions, where Liggett is the only
tobacco company defendant, are dormant.
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,
concealment, 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. Although alleged damages often are not determinable from a
complaint, and the law governing the pleading and calculation of damages varies from state to
state and jurisdiction to jurisdiction, compensatory and punitive damages have been
specifically pleaded in a number of cases, sometimes in amounts ranging into the hundreds of
millions and even billions of dollars.
Defenses raised by defendants in individual 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.
In
addition to the awards against Liggett in Davis and Ferlanti (described above), jury awards
have also been returned against other cigarette manufacturers in recent years. The awards in
these individual actions, often in excess of millions of dollars, are for both compensatory and
punitive damages. There are several significant jury awards against other cigarette
manufacturers which are currently on appeal.
Engle Progeny Cases. In 2000, a jury in Engle v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. rendered a
$145,000,000 punitive damages verdict in favor of a Florida Class against certain cigarette
manufacturers, including Liggett. Pursuant to the Florida Supreme Courts July 2006 ruling in
Engle, which decertified the class on a prospective basis, and affirmed the appellate courts
reversal of the punitive damages award, former class members had one year from January 11, 2007
in which to file individual lawsuits. In addition, some individuals who filed suit prior to
January 11, 2007, and who claim they meet the conditions in Engle, are attempting to avail
themselves of the Engle ruling. Lawsuits by individuals requesting the benefit of the Engle
ruling, whether filed before or after the January 11, 2007 deadline, are referred to as the
Engle progeny cases. Liggett and/or the Company have been named in approximately 3,200 Engle
progeny cases in both state and federal courts in Florida. Other cigarette
manufacturers have also been named as defendants in most of these cases. These cases include
approximately 8,750 plaintiffs, approximately 3,200 of whom have claims pending in federal
court. Duplicate cases were filed in federal and state court on behalf of approximately 660
plaintiffs. The majority of the cases pending in federal court are stayed pending the outcome
of an appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit of several district
court orders in which it was found that the Florida Supreme Courts decision in Engle was
unconstitutional. The number of cases will likely increase as the courts may require
multi-plaintiff cases to be severed into individual cases. The total number of plaintiffs may
also increase as a result of attempts by existing plaintiffs to add additional parties. There
are approximately 45 Engle progeny cases currently scheduled for trial, or likely to be
scheduled for trial, in 2009 and 2010. To date, three Engle progeny cases have gone to trial
resulting in one plaintiff verdict and two defense verdicts. Liggett was not a party in these
cases. For further information on the Engle case and on Engle progeny cases, see Class
Actions Engle Case, below.
-20-
VECTOR GROUP LTD.
NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Continued)
(Dollars in Thousands, Except Per Share Amounts)
Unaudited
Class Actions
As of March 31, 2009, there were seven actions pending for which either a class had been
certified or plaintiffs were seeking class certification, where Liggett is a named defendant,
including two alleged price fixing cases. Other cigarette manufacturers are also named in these
actions. Many of these actions purport to constitute statewide class actions and were filed
after May 1996 when the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, in Castano v.
American Tobacco Co., Inc., reversed a federal district courts certification of a purported
nationwide class action on behalf of persons who were allegedly addicted to tobacco products.
Engle Case. In May 1994, Engle was filed against Liggett and others in Miami-Dade County,
Florida. The class consisted of all Florida residents who, by November 21, 1996, have
suffered, presently suffer or have died from diseases and medical conditions caused by their
addiction to cigarette smoking. In July 1999, after the conclusion of Phase I of the trial,
the jury returned a verdict against Liggett and other cigarette manufacturers on certain issues
determined by the trial court to be common to the causes of action of the plaintiff class.
The jury made several findings adverse to the defendants including that defendants conduct
rose to a level that would permit a potential award or entitlement to punitive damages.
Phase II of the trial was a causation and damages trial for three of the class plaintiffs and a
punitive damages trial on a class-wide basis, before the same jury that returned the verdict in
Phase I. In April 2000, the jury awarded compensatory damages of $12,704 to the three class
plaintiffs, to be reduced in proportion to the respective plaintiffs fault. In July 2000, the
jury awarded approximately $145,000,000 in punitive damages, including $790,000 against
Liggett.
In May 2003, Floridas Third District Court of Appeal reversed the trial court and remanded the
case with instructions to decertify the class. The judgment in favor of one of the three class
plaintiffs, in the amount of $5,831, was overturned as time barred and the court found that
Liggett was not liable to the other two class plaintiffs.
In July 2006, the Florida Supreme Court affirmed the decision vacating the punitive damages
award and held that the class should be decertified prospectively, but preserved several of the
trial courts Phase I findings, including that: (i) smoking causes lung cancer, among other
diseases; (ii) nicotine in cigarettes is addictive; (iii) defendants placed cigarettes on the
market that were defective and unreasonably dangerous; (iv) defendants concealed material
information; (v) all defendants sold or supplied cigarettes that were defective; and (vi) all
defendants were negligent. The Florida Supreme Court decision also allowed former class members
to proceed to trial on individual liability issues (using the above findings) and compensatory
and punitive damage issues, provided they file their individual lawsuits within one year from
January 11, 2007, the date of the courts mandate. In December 2006, the Florida Supreme Court
added the finding that defendants sold or supplied cigarettes that, at the time of sale or
supply, did not conform to the representations made by defendants. As a result of the
decision, approximately 8,750 former Engle class members filed suit against the Company and/or
Liggett as well as other cigarette manufacturers.
In June 2002, the jury in a Florida state court action entitled Lukacs v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco
Co., awarded $37,500 in compensatory damages, jointly and severally, in a case involving
Liggett and two other cigarette manufacturers, which amount was subsequently reduced by the
court. The jury found Liggett 50% responsible for
the damages incurred by the plaintiff. The Lukacs case was the first case to be tried as an
individual Engle progeny case. In October 2008, plaintiff withdrew her request for punitive
damages. In November 2008, the court entered final judgment in the amount of $24,835 (for
which Liggett is 50% responsible), plus interest from June 2002 which as of March 31, 2009, was
in excess of $13,000. In December 2008, defendants appealed the final judgment. Liggett and
plaintiff have been in discussions regarding the posting of a bond for the appeal. In
addition, plaintiff filed a motion seeking an award of attorneys fees from Liggett based on
plaintiffs prior proposal for settlement. All proceedings relating to the motion for
attorneys fees are stayed pending a final resolution of appellate proceedings.
-21-
VECTOR GROUP LTD.
NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Continued)
(Dollars in Thousands, Except Per Share Amounts)
Unaudited
Other Class Actions. Smith v. Philip Morris (Kansas) is an action in which plaintiffs allege
that cigarette manufacturers conspired to fix cigarette prices in violation of antitrust laws.
Class certification was granted in Smith in November 2001. Discovery is ongoing. In West
Virginia, a jury verdict in a purported medical monitoring class action was entered in favor of
all tobacco company defendants other than Liggett (Liggett was previously severed from the
trial). There has been no further activity in this case.
Class action suits have been filed in a number of states against cigarette manufacturers,
alleging, among other things, that use of the terms light and ultra light constitutes
unfair and deceptive trade practices, among other things. One such suit, Schwab [McLaughlin]
v. Philip Morris, pending in federal court in New York since 2004, sought to create a
nationwide class of light cigarette smokers. In September 2006, the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of New York certified the class. In April 2008, the United
States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit decertified the class. The case was returned to
the trial court for further proceedings (see discussion of Cleary case below). In December
2008, the United States Supreme Court, in Altria Group Inc. v. Good, ruled that the Federal
Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act did not preempt the state law claims asserted by the
plaintiffs and that they could proceed with their claims under the Maine Unfair Trade
Practices Act. This ruling may result in additional class action cases in other states.
Although Liggett is not a party in the Good case, an adverse ruling or commencement of
additional lights related class actions could have a material adverse effect on the Company.
In November 1997, in Young v. American Tobacco Co., a purported personal injury class action
was commenced on behalf of plaintiff and all similarly situated residents in Louisiana who,
though not themselves cigarette smokers, are alleged to have been exposed to secondhand smoke
from cigarettes which were manufactured by the defendants, and who suffered injury as a result
of that exposure. The plaintiffs seek to recover an unspecified amount of compensatory and
punitive damages. In October 2004, the trial court stayed this case pending the outcome of the
appeal in Scott v. American Tobacco Co. (see description below).
In June 1998, in Cleary v. Philip Morris, a putative class action was brought in Illinois state
court on behalf of persons who were allegedly injured by: (i) defendants purported conspiracy
to conceal material facts regarding the addictive nature of nicotine; (ii) defendants alleged
acts of targeting their advertising and marketing to minors; and (iii) defendants claimed
breach of the publics right to defendants compliance with laws prohibiting the distribution
of cigarettes to minors. Plaintiffs request that defendants be required to disgorge all profits
unjustly received through their sale of cigarettes to plaintiffs and the class. In July 2006,
the plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification. A class certification hearing occurred
in September 2007 and the parties are awaiting a decision. Merits discovery is stayed pending a
ruling by the court. In March 2009, plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint adding, among
other things, allegations regarding defendants sale of light cigarettes. In April 2009,
plaintiffs in 11 lights class actions, including Cleary and Schwab, moved to consolidate these
11 cases before Judge Weinstein in the Eastern District of New York in a multidistrict
litigation.
In April 2001, in Brown v. American Tobacco Co., a California state court 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.
In March 2005, the court granted defendants motion to decertify the class based on a recent
change in California law. In October 2006, the plaintiffs filed a petition for review with the
California Supreme Court, which was granted in November 2006. Oral argument was held on March
3, 2009 and a decision is expected in June 2009.
Although not technically a class action, in In Re: Tobacco Litigation (Personal Injury Cases),
a West Virginia state court consolidated approximately 750 individual smoker actions that were
pending prior to 2001 for trial of certain common issues. In January 2002, the court severed
Liggett from the trial of the consolidated action. The consolidation was affirmed on appeal by
the West Virginia Supreme Court. In February 2008, the United States Supreme Court denied
defendants petition for writ of certiorari asking the Court to review the trial plan. It is
estimated that Liggett could be a defendant in approximately 100 of the cases.
-22-
VECTOR GROUP LTD.
NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Continued)
(Dollars in Thousands, Except Per Share Amounts)
Unaudited
Class certification motions are pending in a number of other cases and a number of orders
denying class certification are on appeal. In addition to the cases described above, numerous
class actions remain certified against other cigarette manufacturers, including Scott. In that
case, a Louisiana jury returned a $591,000 verdict (subsequently reduced by the court to
$263,500 plus interest from June 2004) against other cigarette manufacturers to fund medical
monitoring or smoking cessation programs for members of the class. The case is on appeal.
Governmental Actions
As of March 31, 2009, there were two Governmental Actions pending against Liggett, only one of
which is active. The claims asserted in health care cost recovery actions vary. In these
cases, the governmental entities typically assert equitable claims that the tobacco industry
was unjustly enriched by their 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 City of St. Louis v. American Tobacco Company, a case pending in Missouri state court since
December 1998, the City of St. Louis and approximately 40 hospitals seek recovery of costs
expended by the hospitals on behalf of patients who suffer, or have suffered, from illnesses
allegedly resulting from the use of cigarettes. In June 2005, the court granted defendants
motion for summary judgment as to claims for damages which accrued prior to November 16, 1993.
The claims for damages which accrued after November 16, 1993 are pending. Discovery is
ongoing. In September 2008, the court heard argument on motions for summary judgment filed by
the parties. A decision is pending. Trial is currently scheduled to commence in January 2010.
DOJ Case. In September 1999, the United States government commenced litigation against Liggett
and other cigarette manufacturers in the United States District Court for the District of
Columbia. The action sought to recover an unspecified amount of health care costs paid and to
be paid 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 alleged fraud and other
allegedly unlawful conduct in the future, and to compel defendants to disgorge the proceeds of
their unlawful conduct. 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.
In August 2006, the trial court entered a Final Judgment and Remedial Order against each of the
cigarette manufacturing defendants, except Liggett. The Final Judgment, among other things,
enjoined the non-Liggett defendants from using lights, low tar, ultra lights, mild, or
natural descriptors, or conveying any other express or implied health messages in connection
with the marketing or sale of cigarettes, domestically and internationally. The Final Judgment
was stayed pending appeal. Although this case has been concluded as to Liggett, it is unclear
what impact, if any, the Final Judgment will have on the cigarette industry as a whole. The
decision is currently on appeal by all parties other than Liggett. To the extent that the Final
Judgment leads to a decline in industry-wide shipments of cigarettes in the United States or
otherwise results in restrictions that adversely affect the industry, Liggetts sales volume,
operating income and cash flows could be materially adversely affected.
-23-
VECTOR GROUP LTD.
NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Continued)
(Dollars in Thousands, Except Per Share Amounts)
Unaudited
Third-Party Payor Actions
As of March 31, 2009, there were two Third-Party Payor Actions pending against Liggett and
other cigarette manufacturers. Third-Party Payor Actions typically have been filed by insurance
companies, union health and welfare trust funds, asbestos manufacturers and others. In
Third-Party Payor Actions, plaintiffs seek damages for 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. Although no specific amounts are provided, it is possible that requested
damages against cigarette manufacturers in these cases might be in the billions of dollars.
Several federal circuit courts of appeals and state appellate courts have ruled that
Third-Party Payors do not have standing to bring lawsuits against cigarette manufacturers,
relying primarily on grounds that plaintiffs claims were too remote. The United States
Supreme Court has refused to consider plaintiffs appeals from the cases decided by five
federal circuit courts of appeals.
In June 2005, the Jerusalem District Court in Israel added Liggett as a defendant in an action
commenced in 1998 by the largest private insurer in that country, General Health Services,
against the major United States cigarette manufacturers. The plaintiff seeks to recover the
past and future value of the total expenditures for health care services provided to residents
of Israel resulting from tobacco related diseases, court ordered interest for past expenditures
from the date of filing the statement of claim, increased and/or punitive and/or exemplary
damages and costs. The court ruled that, although Liggett had not sold product in Israel since
at least 1978, it might still have liability for cigarettes sold prior to that time. Motions
filed by defendants are pending before the Israel Supreme Court seeking appeal from a lower
courts decision granting leave to plaintiff for foreign service of process.
In May 2008, in National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare v. Philip Morris
USA, a case pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York,
plaintiffs commenced an action to recover twice the amount paid by Medicare for the health care
services provided to Medicare beneficiaries to treat diseases allegedly attributable to smoking
defendants cigarettes from May 21, 2002 to the present, for which treatment defendants
allegedly were required to make payment under MSP. Defendants Motion to Dismiss and
plaintiffs Motion for Partial Summary Judgment were filed in July 2008 and in March 2009, the
court dismissed the case.
Upcoming Trials
There are currently approximately 45 Engle progeny cases that may be set for trial during 2009
and 2010. The Company and/or Liggett and other cigarette manufacturers are currently named as
defendants in each of these cases. In addition, a trial has been scheduled in October 2009 in
an individual action in Missouri where Liggett and other cigarette manufacturers are named as
defendants. Trial dates are subject to change.
MSA and Other State Settlement Agreements
In March 1996, March 1997 and March 1998, Liggett entered into settlements of smoking-related
litigation with 45 states and territories. The settlements released Liggett from all
smoking-related claims within those states and territories, 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 (the Original
Participating Manufacturers or OPMs) and Liggett (together with any other tobacco product
manufacturer that becomes a signatory, the Subsequent Participating Manufacturers or SPMs)
(the OPMs and SPMs are hereinafter referred to jointly as 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 the Settling States. The MSA received
final judicial approval in each Settling State.
-24-
VECTOR GROUP LTD.
NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Continued)
(Dollars in Thousands, Except Per Share Amounts)
Unaudited
As a result of the MSA, the Settling States released Liggett from:
|
|
|
all claims of the Settling States and their respective political subdivisions and other
recipients of state health care funds, relating to: (i) past conduct arising out of the
use, sale, distribution, manufacture, development, advertising and marketing of tobacco
products; (ii) the health effects of, the exposure to, or research, statements or warnings
about, tobacco products; and |
|
|
|
|
all monetary claims of the Settling States and their respective subdivisions and other
recipients of state health care funds relating to future conduct arising out of the use
of, or exposure to, tobacco products that have been manufactured in the ordinary course of
business. |
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 certain limited exceptions; 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; and 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.
The MSA also requires Participating Manufacturers to affirm corporate principles to comply with
the MSA and to reduce underage use of tobacco products and imposes restrictions on lobbying
activities conducted on behalf of Participating Manufacturers. In addition, the MSA provides
for the appointment of an independent auditor to calculate and determine the amounts of
payments owed pursuant to the MSA.
Liggett has no payment obligations under the MSA except to the extent its market share exceeds
a market share exemption of approximately 1.65% of total cigarettes sold in the United States.
Vector Tobacco has no payment obligations under the MSA, except to the extent its market share
exceeds a market share exemption of approximately 0.28% of total cigarettes sold in the United
States. According to data from Management Science Associates, Inc., domestic shipments by
Liggett and Vector Tobacco accounted for approximately 2.4%, 2.5% and 2.5% of the total
cigarettes shipped in the United States in 2006, 2007 and 2008, respectively. If Liggetts or
Vector Tobaccos market share exceeds their respective market share exemption in a given year,
then on April 15 of the following year, Liggett and/or Vector Tobacco, as the case may be, must
pay on each excess unit an amount equal (on a per-unit basis) to that due from the OPMs for
that year. In April 2007, Liggett and Vector Tobacco paid $38,743 for their 2006 MSA
obligations and in April 2008, paid $35,995 for their 2007 MSA obligations, having prepaid
$34,500 of that amount in December 2007. In December 2008, Liggett and Vector Tobacco prepaid
$34,000 of their 2008 MSA obligations and paid an additional $8,799 in April 2009 after
withholding certain disputed amounts.
Under the payment provisions of the MSA, the Participating Manufacturers are required to pay a
base annual amount of $9,000,000 in 2009 and each year thereafter (subject to applicable
adjustments, offsets and
reductions). These annual payments are allocated based on 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.
-25-
VECTOR GROUP LTD.
NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Continued)
(Dollars in Thousands, Except Per Share Amounts)
Unaudited
Certain MSA Disputes
In 2005, the independent auditor under the MSA calculated that Liggett owed $28,668 for
its 2004 sales. In April 2005, Liggett paid $11,678 and disputed the balance, as permitted by
the MSA. Liggett subsequently paid $9,304 of the disputed amount, although Liggett continues to
dispute that this amount is owed. This $9,304 relates to an adjustment to its 2003 payment
obligation claimed by Liggett for the market share loss to non-participating manufacturers,
which is known as the NPM Adjustment. At March 31, 2009, included in Other assets on the
Companys consolidated balance sheet, was a noncurrent receivable of $6,513 relating to such
amount. The remaining balance in dispute of $7,686 is comprised of $5,318 claimed for a 2004
NPM Adjustment and $2,368 relating to the independent auditors retroactive change from gross
to net units in calculating MSA payments, which Liggett contends is improper, as discussed
below. From their April 2006 payment, Liggett and Vector Tobacco withheld approximately $1,600
claimed for the 2005 NPM Adjustment and $2,949 relating to the retroactive change from gross
to net units. Liggett and Vector Tobacco withheld approximately $4,200 from their April 2007
payments related to the 2006 NPM Adjustment and approximately $3,950 relating to the
retroactive change from gross to net units. From their April 2008 payment, Liggett and
Vector Tobacco withheld approximately $4,000 for the 2007 NPM Adjustment and approximately
$3,696 relating to the retroactive change from gross to net units. Vector Tobacco paid
approximately $200 into the disputed payments account for the 2007 NPM Adjustment. From their
April 2009 payment, Liggett and Vector Tobacco withheld approximately $6,100 relating to the
2008 NPM adjustment and approximately $3,300 relating to the retroactive change from gross to
net units.
The following amounts have not been expensed in the accompanying consolidated financial
statements as they relate to Liggetts and Vector Tobaccos claim for an NPM adjustment: $6,513
for 2003, $3,789 for 2004 and $800 for 2005.
NPM Adjustment. In March 2006, an economic consulting firm selected pursuant to the MSA
rendered its final and non-appealable decision that the MSA was a significant factor
contributing to the loss of market share of Participating Manufacturers for 2003. The economic
consulting firm subsequently rendered the same decision with respect to 2004, 2005 and 2006. As
a result, the manufacturers are entitled to potential NPM Adjustments to their 2003, 2004, 2005
and 2006 MSA payments. A Settling State that has diligently enforced its qualifying escrow
statute in the year in question may be able to avoid application of the NPM Adjustment to the
payments made by the manufacturers for the benefit of that state or territory.
Since April 2006, notwithstanding provisions in the MSA requiring arbitration, litigation has
been filed in 49 Settling States over the issue of whether the application of the NPM
Adjustment for 2003 is to be determined through litigation or arbitration. These actions relate
to the potential NPM Adjustment for 2003, which the independent auditor under the MSA
previously determined to be as much as $1,200,000 for all Participating Manufacturers. All 48
courts that have decided the issue have ruled that the 2003 NPM Adjustment dispute is
arbitrable and 46 of those decisions are final and non-appealable. In response to a proposal
from the OPMs and many of the SPMs, 45 of the Settling States, representing approximately 90%
of the allocable share of the Settling States, entered into an agreement providing for a
nationwide arbitration of the dispute with respect to the NPM Adjustment for 2003. The
agreement provides for selection of the arbitration panel beginning October 1, 2009 and that
the parties and the arbitrators will thereafter establish the schedule and procedures for the
arbitration. Because states representing more than 80% of the allocable share signed the
agreement, signing states will receive a 20% reduction of any potential 2003 NPM adjustment..
It is anticipated that the arbitration will begin in 2010. There can be no assurance that
Liggett or Vector Tobacco will receive any adjustment as a result of these proceedings.
Gross v. Net Calculations. In October 2004, the independent auditor notified Liggett and all
other Participating Manufacturers that their payment obligations under the MSA, dating from the
agreements execution in late 1998,
had been recalculated using net unit amounts, rather than gross unit amounts (which had
been used since 1999). The change in the method of calculation could, among other things,
require additional MSA payments by Liggett of approximately $25,600, including interest, for
2001 through 2008, and require additional amounts in future periods because the proposed change
from gross to net units would serve to lower Liggetts market share exemption under the
MSA.
Liggett has objected to this retroactive change and has disputed the change in methodology.
Liggett contends that the retroactive change from using gross to net unit amounts is
impermissible for several reasons, including:
-26-
VECTOR GROUP LTD.
NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Continued)
(Dollars in Thousands, Except Per Share Amounts)
Unaudited
|
|
|
use of net unit amounts is not required by the MSA (as reflected by, among
other things, the use of gross unit amounts through 2005); |
|
|
|
|
such a change is not authorized without the consent of affected parties to the
MSA; |
|
|
|
|
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 since 1998. |
No amounts have been expensed or accrued in the accompanying consolidated financial statements
for any potential liability relating to the gross versus net dispute.
QUEST 3. Vector Tobacco does not make MSA payments on sales of its QUEST 3 product as Vector
Tobacco believes that QUEST 3 does not fall within the definition of a cigarette under the MSA.
There can be no assurance that Vector Tobaccos assessment is correct and that additional
payments under the MSA for QUEST 3 will not be owed.
Litigation Challenging the MSA. In Freedom Holdings Inc. v. Cuomo, litigation pending in
federal court in New York, certain importers of cigarettes allege that the MSA and certain
related New York statutes violate federal antitrust and constitutional law. The district court
granted New Yorks motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim. On appeal,
the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that if all of the allegations
of the complaint were assumed to be true, plaintiffs had stated a claim for relief on antitrust
grounds. In January 2009, the district court granted New Yorks motion for summary judgment,
dismissing all claims brought by the plaintiffs, and dissolving the preliminary injunction.
The plaintiffs have appealed.
In Grand River Enterprises Six Nations, Ltd. v. Pryor, another proceeding pending in federal
court in New York, plaintiffs seek to enjoin the statutes enacted by New York and other states
in connection with the MSA on the grounds that the statutes violate the Commerce Clause of the
United States Constitution and federal antitrust laws. In September 2005, the United States
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that if all of the allegations of the complaint
were assumed to be true, plaintiffs had stated a claim for relief and that the New York federal
court had jurisdiction over the other defendant states. Discovery is pending. Similar
challenges to the MSA and MSA-related state statutes are pending in Kentucky, Arkansas, Kansas,
Louisiana, Tennessee and Oklahoma. Liggett and the other cigarette manufacturers are not
defendants in these cases. Litigation challenging the validity of the MSA, including claims
that the MSA violates antitrust laws, has not been successful to date.
In October 2008, Vibo Corporation, Inc., d/b/a General Tobacco (Vibo) commenced litigation in
the United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky against each of the
Settling States and certain Participating Manufacturers. Vibo alleged, among other things,
that the market share exemptions (i.e.: grandfathered shares) provided to certain SPMs under
the MSA, including Liggett and Vector Tobacco, violate federal antitrust and constitutional
law. In January 2009, the court issued a memorandum opinion and order
granting the defendants motions and dismissing Vibos lawsuit. On December 11, 2008, Vibo
filed a second complaint, seeking declaratory relief under the MSA, in California state court
against the State of California and certain cigarette manufacturers, including Liggett and
Vector Tobacco, seeking a determination that the proposed amendment to its agreement to join
the MSA, under which it would no longer have to make certain MSA payments, did not trigger the
MSAs most favored nation provision. In March 2009, the OPMs and SPMs each filed motions for
summary judgment which are pending.
-27-
VECTOR GROUP LTD.
NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Continued)
(Dollars in Thousands, Except Per Share Amounts)
Unaudited
Other State Settlements. 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 full
force and effect, and Liggett made various payments to these states under the agreements.
These states settlement agreements with Liggett contained most favored nation provisions
which could reduce Liggetts 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 with United States
Tobacco Company, Liggetts payment obligations to those states had been eliminated. With
respect to all non-economic obligations under the previous settlements, Liggett believes it
is 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 2003, in order to resolve any potential issues with Minnesota as to Liggetts ongoing
economic settlement obligations, Liggett negotiated a $100 a year payment to Minnesota, to be
paid any year cigarettes manufactured by Liggett are sold in that state. In 2004, the
Attorneys General for Florida, Mississippi and Texas advised Liggett that they believed that
Liggett had failed to make all required payments under the respective settlement agreements
with these states for the period 1998 through 2003 and that additional payments may be due for
2004 and subsequent years. Liggett believes the states allegations are without merit, based,
among other things, on the language of the most favored nation provisions of the settlement
agreements.
Except for $2,500 accrued at March 31, 2009, in connection with the foregoing matters, no
other amounts have been accrued in the accompanying condensed consolidated financial statements
for any additional amounts that may be payable by Liggett under the settlement agreements with
Florida, Mississippi and Texas. The previous demands by these states are substantially in
excess of the $2,500 accrual, although there have been no substantive settlement discussions
for several years. There can be no assurance that Liggett will resolve these matters or that
Liggett will not be required to make additional material payments, which payments could
adversely affect the Companys consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash
flows.
Cautionary Statement. Management is not able to predict the outcome of the litigation pending
or threatened against Liggett. Litigation is subject to many uncertainties. For example, in
addition to $540 awarded in the Davis case, plus legal fees, and the $816 awarded in the
Ferlanti case, plus legal fees, in June 2002, the jury in the Lukacs case, an individual case
brought under the third phase of the Engle case, awarded compensatory damages against Liggett
and two other defendants and found Liggett 50% responsible for the damages. In November 2008,
the court entered final judgment in favor of the plaintiff for $24,835, plus interest from June
11, 2002 which, as of March 31, 2009, exceeded $13,000. It is possible that additional cases
could be decided unfavorably against Liggett. As a result of the Engle decision, approximately
8,750 former Engle class members commenced suit against Liggett and/or the Company and other
cigarette manufacturers. 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 defense costs,
settlements or 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, or could lead to
multiple adverse decisions in the Engle progeny cases. An adverse verdict was rendered in one
of the first three Engle progeny cases that have, to date, gone to trial. Liggett was not
a defendant in this case. Management is unable to make a reasonable estimate with respect to
the amount or range of loss that could result from an unfavorable outcome of the cases pending
against Liggett or the costs of defending such cases and as a result has not provided any
amounts in its condensed consolidated financial statements for unfavorable outcomes. The
complaints filed in these cases rarely detail alleged damages. Typically, the claims set forth
in an individuals complaint against the tobacco industry seek money damages in an amount to be
determined by a jury, plus punitive damages and costs.
The tobacco industry is subject to a wide range of laws and regulations regarding the
marketing, sale, taxation and use of tobacco products imposed by local, state and federal
governments. There have been a number of 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.
-28-
VECTOR GROUP LTD.
NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Continued)
(Dollars in Thousands, Except Per Share Amounts)
Unaudited
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 of the
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 not had a material effect on
the capital expenditures, results of operations or competitive position of Liggett or Vector
Tobacco.
Other Matters:
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 certain tobacco distributors to secure, on reasonable terms, tax stamp bonds
required by state and local governments for the distribution of cigarettes. This agreement was
extended through 2014. 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 agreed to fund up to an additional $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 March 31, 2009.
There may be several other proceedings, lawsuits and claims pending against the Company and
certain of its consolidated subsidiaries unrelated to tobacco 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.
9. INCOME TAXES
Vectors income tax rates for the three months ended March 31, 2009 and 2008 do not bear a
customary relationship to statutory income tax rates as a result of the impact of nondeductible
expenses, state income taxes and interest and penalties accrued on unrecognized tax benefits
offset by the impact of the domestic production activities deduction.
The Companys provision for income taxes in interim periods is based on an estimated annual
effective income tax rate derived, in part, from estimated annual pre-tax results from ordinary
operations in accordance with FIN
18, Accounting for Income Taxes in Interim Periodsan interpretation of APB Opinion No. 28.
For the three months ended March 31, 2008, the Companys income tax provision was reduced
because of the impact of the gain on the income from the Companys investment in the St. Regis
Hotel, which reduced income tax expense by $460 due to differences in the Companys marginal
tax rate of approximately 41% and its anticipated effective annual income tax rate from
ordinary operations of approximately 45%.
The Companys current income taxes payable increased by approximately $75,500 and its current
portion of deferred income taxes payable decreased by approximately $75,500 as a result of
taxable income of approximately $197,000 from exercise by Philip Morris of an option associated
with the brands transaction.
-29-
VECTOR GROUP LTD.
NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Continued)
(Dollars in Thousands, Except Per Share Amounts)
Unaudited
The Internal Revenue Service is auditing the Companys 2005 tax year. The Company believes it
has adequately reserved for any potential adjustments that may arise as a result of the audit.
10. NEW VALLEY
The components of Investments in non-consolidated real estate businesses were as follows as
of March 31, 2009 and December 31, 2008:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
March 31, 2009 |
|
|
December 31, 2008 |
|
|
Douglas Elliman Realty LLC |
|
$ |
30,552 |
|
|
$ |
33,175 |
|
Aberdeen Townhomes LLC |
|
|
3,000 |
|
|
|
6,500 |
|
New Valley Oaktree Chelsea Eleven LLC |
|
|
10,506 |
|
|
|
11,100 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Investments in non-consolidated real
estate businesses |
|
$ |
44,058 |
|
|
$ |
50,775 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Residential Brokerage Business. New Valley recorded a loss of $1,195 and income of $1,337 for
the three months ended March 31, 2009 and 2008, respectively, associated with Douglas Elliman
Realty. New Valleys income or loss includes 50% of Douglas Ellimans net income or loss, as
well as interest income earned by New Valley on a subordinated loan to Douglas Elliman Realty,
increases to income resulting from management fees and other adjustments. New Valley received
cash distributions from Douglas Elliman Realty LLC of $1,428 and $325 for the three months
ended March 31, 2009 and 2008, respectively.
Summarized financial information for Douglas Elliman Realty for the three months ended March
31, 2009 and 2008 and as of March 31, 2009 and December 31, 2008 is presented below.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
March 31, 2009 |
|
|
December 31, 2008 |
|
|
Cash |
|
$ |
12,140 |
|
|
$ |
22,125 |
|
Other current assets |
|
|
6,849 |
|
|
|
7,496 |
|
Property, plant and equipment, net |
|
|
14,877 |
|
|
|
15,868 |
|
Trademarks |
|
|
21,663 |
|
|
|
21,663 |
|
Goodwill |
|
|
38,330 |
|
|
|
38,325 |
|
Other intangible assets, net |
|
|
1,246 |
|
|
|
1,311 |
|
Other non-current assets |
|
|
911 |
|
|
|
904 |
|
Notes payable current |
|
|
571 |
|
|
|
1,413 |
|
Current portion of notes payable to member
Prudential Real
Estate Financial Services
of America, Inc. |
|
|
4,729 |
|
|
|
4,729 |
|
Current portion of notes payable
to member New Valley |
|
|
4,729 |
|
|
|
4,729 |
|
Other current liabilities |
|
|
17,514 |
|
|
|
23,294 |
|
Notes payable long term |
|
|
715 |
|
|
|
1,805 |
|
Notes payable to member Prudential Real
Estate Financial Services of America, Inc. |
|
|
995 |
|
|
|
2,030 |
|
Notes payable to member New Valley |
|
|
995 |
|
|
|
2,030 |
|
Other long-term liabilities |
|
|
8,295 |
|
|
|
6,939 |
|
Members equity |
|
|
57,473 |
|
|
|
60,723 |
|
-30-
VECTOR GROUP LTD.
NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Continued)
(Dollars in Thousands, Except Per Share Amounts)
Unaudited
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three Months Ended |
|
|
|
March 31, |
|
|
|
2009 |
|
|
2008 |
|
|
Revenues |
|
$ |
48,956 |
|
|
$ |
81,363 |
|
Costs and expenses |
|
|
50,560 |
|
|
|
77,229 |
|
Depreciation expense |
|
|
1,199 |
|
|
|
1,350 |
|
Amortization expense |
|
|
64 |
|
|
|
74 |
|
Interest expense, net |
|
|
691 |
|
|
|
863 |
|
Income tax (benefit) expense |
|
|
(310 |
) |
|
|
115 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net (loss) income |
|
$ |
(3,248 |
) |
|
$ |
1,732 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Douglas Elliman Realty has been negatively impacted by the current downturn in the
residential real estate market. The residential real estate market is cyclical and is
affected by changes in the general economic conditions that are beyond Douglas Elliman
Realtys control. The U.S. residential real estate market, including the market in the New
York metropolitan area where Douglas Elliman operates, is currently in a significant downturn
due to various factors including downward pressure on housing prices, the impact of the
recent contraction in the subprime and mortgage markets generally and an exceptionally large
inventory of unsold homes at the same time that sales volumes are decreasing. The depth and
length of the current downturn in the real estate industry has proved exceedingly difficult
to predict. The Company cannot predict whether the downturn will worsen or when the market
and related economic forces will return the U.S. residential real estate industry to a growth
period.
All of Douglas Elliman Realtys current operations are located in the New York metropolitan
area. Local and regional economic and general business conditions in this market could differ
materially from prevailing conditions in other parts of the country. Among other things, the
New York metropolitan residential real estate market has been impacted by the significant
decline in the financial services industry. A continued downturn in the residential real
estate market or economic conditions in that region could have a material adverse effect on
Douglas Elliman Realty.
Aberdeen Townhomes LLC. In June 2008, a subsidiary of New Valley purchased a preferred
equity interest in Aberdeen Townhomes LLC (Aberdeen) for $10,000. Aberdeen acquired five
town home residences located in Manhattan, New York, which it is in the process of
rehabilitating and selling. In the event that Aberdeen makes distributions of cash, New
Valley is entitled to a priority preferred return of 15% per annum until it has recovered its
invested capital. New Valley is entitled to 25% of subsequent cash distributions of profits
until it has achieved an annual 18% internal rate of return (IRR). New Valley is then
entitled to 20% of subsequent cash distributions of profits until it has achieved an annual
23% IRR. After New Valley has achieved an annual 23% IRR, it is then entitled to 10% of any
remaining cash distributions of profits.
In February 2009, the managing member of Aberdeen Townhomes resigned, and a subsidiary of New
Valley became the new managing member as of March 1, 2009. Aberdeen is a variable interest
entity; however, even as the managing member, the Company is not the primary beneficiary as
other parties to the investment would absorb a majority of the variable interest entitys
losses under the current arrangement. The Companys maximum exposure to loss as a result of
its investment in Aberdeen is $10,000. This investment is being accounted for under the cost
method.
In January 2009, the Company obtained an appraisal of the town home residences and determined
that the value of the properties, less estimated disposal costs, was approximately $3,500
less than their carrying value and recorded an impairment charge for $3,500 for the year end
December 31, 2008. In April 2009, the Company reevaluated the fair market value of the town
home residences and determined an additional decline in the value of the properties of $3,500
had occurred and recorded an impairment charge of $3,500 for the three months ended March 31,
2009. The reduction in value was attributed to the overall real estate market conditions in
New York City.
-31-
VECTOR GROUP LTD.
NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Continued)
(Dollars in Thousands, Except Per Share Amounts)
Unaudited
Mortgages on four of the five Aberdeen town homes with a balance of approximately $36,100
matured on March 1, 2009 and have not been refinanced or paid and are in default. The
remaining mortgage with a balance of approximately $4,550 matures on September 30, 2009 is
also in default due to non-payment as of March 31, 2009.
New Valley Oaktree Chelsea Eleven, LLC. In September 2008, a subsidiary of New Valley
purchased for $12,000 a 40% interest in New Valley Oaktree Chelsea Eleven, LLC (New Valley
Oaktree). New Valley Oaktree lent $29,000 and contributed $1,000 for 29% of the capital in
Chelsea Eleven LLC (Chelsea), which is developing a condominium project in Manhattan, New
York. The development consists of 72 luxury residential units and one commercial unit.
Approximately 75% of the units are pre-sold and approximately $35,000 in deposits are held in
escrow. The loan from New Valley Oaktree loan is subordinate to a $110,000 construction loan
and a $24,000 mezzanine loan plus accrued interest. The loan from New Valley Oaktree to
Chelsea bears interest at 60.25% per annum, compounded monthly, with
$3,750 initially being held in an
interest reserve, from which five monthly payments of $300 have been paid to New Valley.
New Valley Chelsea is a variable interest entity; however, the Company is not the primary
beneficiary. The Companys maximum exposure to loss as a result of its investment in Chelsea
is $12,000. This investment is being accounted for under the equity method. New Valley
Chelsea operates as an investment vehicle for the Chelsea real estate development project.
As of March 31, 2009 and December 31, 2008, Chelsea had approximately $218,615 and $206,778
of total assets, respectively and $198,110 and $185,665 of total liabilities, respectively.
No income has been recorded as all amounts have been capitalized in the construction project.
Mortgage receivable/Escena Project. In March 2008, a subsidiary of New Valley purchased a
loan secured by a substantial portion of a 450-acre approved master planned community in Palm
Springs, California known as Escena. The loan, which was in foreclosure, was purchased for
its $20,000 face value plus accrued interest and other costs of $1,445. The collateral
consists of 867 residential lots with site and public infrastructure, an 18-hole golf course,
a substantially completed clubhouse, and a seven-acre site approved for a 450-room hotel.
In April 2009, New Valleys subsidiary entered into a settlement agreement with Lennar
Corporation, a guarantor of the loan, which requires the guarantor to satisfy its obligations
under a completion guaranty by completing improvements to the project in settlement, among
other things, of its payment guarantees. In addition, the guarantor agreed to pay
approximately $250 in legal fees and $1,000 of delinquent taxes and penalties and post a
letter of credit to secure its construction obligation. As a result of this settlement, the
Company calculated the fair market value of the investment as of March 31, 2009, utilizing
the most recent as is appraisal of the collateral and the value of the completion guaranty
less estimated costs to dispose of the property. Based on these estimates, the Company
determined that the fair market value was less than the carrying amount of the mortgage
receivable at March 31, 2009, by approximately $5,000. Accordingly, the reserve was
increased and a charge of $5,000 was recorded for the three months ended March 31, 2009. The
Company carried the loan on its condensed balance sheet at its net basis of $12,704 as of
March 31, 2009. On April 15, 2009 New Valley completed the foreclosure process and on April
16, 2009, took title to the collateral.
Real Estate Market Conditions. Because the real estate, capital and credit markets have
continued to worsen, the Company will continue to perform additional assessments to determine
the impact of the markets, if any, on the Companys consolidated financial statements. Thus,
future impairment charges may occur.
-32-
VECTOR GROUP LTD.
NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Continued)
(Dollars in Thousands, Except Per Share Amounts)
Unaudited
11. INVESTMENTS AND FAIR VALUE MEASUREMENTS
As of January 1, 2009, SFAS No. 157, Fair Value Measurements,
applies to both the Companys financial assets and liabilities and
non-financial assets and liabilities. SFAS No. 157 provides guidance
for using fair value to measure assets and liabilities and only
applies when other standards require or permit the fair value
measurement of assets and liabilities. SFAS No. 157 does not require any new fair value
measurements but rather introduces a framework for measuring fair value and expands required
disclosure about fair value measurements of assets and liabilities.
SFAS No. 157 discusses valuation techniques, such as the market approach (comparable market
prices), the income approach (present value of future income or cash flow), and the cost
approach (cost to replace the service capacity of an asset or replacement cost). The statement
clarifies that fair value is an exit price, representing amounts that would be received to sell
an asset or paid to transfer a liability in an orderly transaction between market participants.
SFAS No. 157 utilizes a three-tier fair value hierarchy that prioritizes the inputs to
valuation techniques used to measure fair value into three broad levels. The following is a
brief description of those three levels:
|
|
|
Level 1
|
|
Observable inputs such as quoted prices (unadjusted) in active
markets for identical assets or liabilities. |
|
|
|
Level 2
|
|
Inputs other than quoted prices that are observable for the assets
or liability, either directory or indirectly. These include
quoted prices for similar assets or liabilities in active markets
and quoted prices for identical or similar assets or liabilities
in markets that are not active. |
|
|
|
Level 3
|
|
Unobservable inputs in which there is little market data, which
requires the reporting entity to develop their own assumptions. |
This hierarchy requires the use of observable market data, when available, and to minimize the
use of unobservable inputs when determining fair value.
The Companys recurring financial assets and liabilities subject to fair value measurements and
the necessary disclosures are as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fair Value Measurements as of March 31, 2009 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Quoted Prices in |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Active Markets for |
|
|
Significant Other |
|
|
Significant |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Identical Assets |
|
|
Observable Inputs |
|
|
Unobservable Inputs |
|
Description |
|
Total |
|
|
(Level 1) |
|
|
(Level 2) |
|
|
(Level 3) |
|
Assets: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Money market funds |
|
$ |
192,600 |
|
|
$ |
192,600 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
Bonds |
|
|
1,525 |
|
|
|
1,525 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Investment securities
available for sale |
|
|
24,496 |
|
|
|
18,742 |
|
|
|
5,754 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total |
|
$ |
218,621 |
|
|
$ |
212,867 |
|
|
$ |
5,754 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Liabilities: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fair value of derivatives
embedded within
convertible debt |
|
$ |
77,548 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
77,548 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
-33-
VECTOR GROUP LTD.
NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Continued)
(Dollars in Thousands, Except Per Share Amounts)
Unaudited
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fair
Value Measurements as of December 31, 2008 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Quoted Prices in |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Active Markets for |
|
|
Significant Other |
|
|
Significant |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Identical Assets |
|
|
Observable Inputs |
|
|
Unobservable Inputs |
|
Description |
|
Total |
|
|
(Level 1) |
|
|
(Level 2) |
|
|
(Level 3) |
|
Assets: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Money market funds |
|
$ |
192,348 |
|
|
$ |
192,348 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
Investment securities
available for sale |
|
|
28,518 |
|
|
|
20,627 |
|
|
|
7,891 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total |
|
$ |
220,866 |
|
|
$ |
212,975 |
|
|
$ |
7,891 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Liabilities: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fair value of derivatives
embedded within
convertible debt |
|
$ |
77,245 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
77,245 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The fair value of investment securities available for sale included in Level 1 are based on
quoted market prices from various stock exchanges. The Level 2 investment securities available
for sale were not registered and therefore do not have direct market quotes or have certain
restrictions.
The fair value of derivatives embedded within convertible debt were derived using a valuation
model and have been classified as Level 3. The valuation model assumes future dividend
payments by the Company and utilizes interest rates and credit spreads for secured to unsecured
debt, unsecured to subordinated debt and subordinated debt to preferred stock to determine the
fair value of the derivatives embedded within the convertible debt. The changes in fair value
of derivatives embedded within convertible debt as of March 31, 2009 are disclosed. (See Note
6.)
In addition to assets and liabilities that are recorded at fair value on a recurring basis, the
Company is required to record assets and liabilities at liabilities at fair value on a
nonrecurring basis. Generally, assets and liabilities are recorded at fair value on a
nonrecurring basis as a result of impairment charges.
The Companys nonrecurring nonfinancial assets subject to fair value measurements
and the necessary disclosures are as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fair
Value Measurements as of March 31, 2009 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Quoted Prices |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three Months |
|
|
|
|
|
|
In Active |
|
|
Significant |
|
|
|
|
|
|
ended |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Markets for |
|
|
Other |
|
|
Significant |
|
|
|
March 31, 2009 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Identical |
|
|
Observable |
|
|
Unobservable |
|
|
|
Impairment |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Assets |
|
|
Inputs |
|
|
Inputs |
|
Description |
|
Charge |
|
|
Total |
|
|
(Level 1) |
|
|
(Level 2) |
|
|
(Level 3) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Assets: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mortgage receivable |
|
$ |
5,000 |
|
|
$ |
12,704 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
12,704 |
|
Non-consolidated real
estate |
|
|
3,500 |
|
|
|
3,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total |
|
$ |
8,500 |
|
|
$ |
15,704 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
15,704 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Company estimated the fair value of its mortgage receivable and non-consolidated real
estate using observable inputs such as market pricing based on recent events, however,
significant judgment was required to select certain inputs from observed market data. The
decrease in the mortgage receivable and the non-consolidated real estate are attributed to the
decline in the New York and California real estate markets due to various factors including
downward pressure on housing prices, the impact of the recent contraction in the
subprime and mortgage markets generally and a large inventory of unsold homes at the same time that
sales volumes are decreasing. The $8,500 impairment charge for the
three months ended March 31, 2009 was included in the earnings for
the period.
-34-
VECTOR GROUP LTD.
NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Continued)
(Dollars in Thousands, Except Per Share Amounts)
Unaudited
12. SEGMENT INFORMATION
The Companys significant business segments for the three months ended
March 31, 2009 and 2008 were Liggett, Vector Tobacco and New Valley.
The Liggett segment consists of the manufacture and sale of
conventional cigarettes and, for segment reporting purposes, includes
the operations of Medallion (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 accounting policies of the segments
are the same as those described in the summary of significant
accounting policies. The New Valley segment includes the Companys
equity income and investments in non-consolidated real estate
businesses and mortgage receivable.
Financial information for the Companys operations before taxes for
the three months ended March 31, 2009 and 2008 follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Vector |
|
|
New |
|
|
Corporate |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Liggett |
|
|
Tobacco |
|
|
Valley |
|
|
and Other |
|
|
Total |
|
Three months ended March 31,
2009 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Revenues |
|
$ |
120,887 |
|
|
$ |
329 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
121,216 |
|
Operating income (loss) |
|
|
38,410 |
(1) |
|
|
(2,785 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(4,465 |
) |
|
|
31,160 |
|
Equity loss on non-consolidated
real estate businesses |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(995 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(995 |
) |
Identifiable assets |
|
|
287,783 |
|
|
|
2,168 |
|
|
|
56,762 |
|
|
|
336,513 |
|
|
|
683,226 |
|
Depreciation and amortization |
|
|
1,985 |
|
|
|
28 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
580 |
|
|
|
2,593 |
|
Capital expenditures |
|
|
744 |
|
|
|
59 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
803 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three months ended March 31,
2008 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Revenues |
|
$ |
131,645 |
|
|
$ |
560 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
132,205 |
|
Operating income (loss) |
|
|
37,344 |
|
|
|
(2,410 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(6,893 |
) |
|
|
28,041 |
|
Equity income from non-consolidated
real estate businesses |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
13,320 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
13,320 |
|
Identifiable assets |
|
|
336,829 |
|
|
|
2,176 |
|
|
|
53,350 |
|
|
|
396,206 |
|
|
|
788,561 |
|
Depreciation and amortization |
|
|
1,853 |
|
|
|
30 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
585 |
|
|
|
2,468 |
|
Capital expenditures |
|
|
1,215 |
|
|
|
12 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,227 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) Operating income includes a gain of $5,000 on the Philip Morris brand
transaction completed February 2009. |
13. CONDENSED CONSOLIDATING FINANCIAL INFORMATION
The accompanying condensed consolidating financial information has been prepared and presented
pursuant to Securities and Exchange Commission Regulation S-X, Rule 3-10, Financial Statements
of Guarantors and Issuers of Guaranteed Securities Registered or Being Registered. Each of
the subsidiary guarantors are 100% owned, directly or indirectly, by the Company, and all
guaranties are full and unconditional and joint and several.
-35-
VECTOR GROUP LTD.
NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Continued)
(Dollars in Thousands, Except Per Share Amounts)
Unaudited
The Companys investments in its consolidated subsidiaries are presented under the equity method
of accounting.
The 11% Senior Secured Notes due 2015, issued on August 16, 2007 by Vector, are fully and
unconditionally guarantied on a joint and several basis by all of the 100%-owned domestic
subsidiaries of the Company that are engaged in the conduct of its cigarette businesses. (See
Note 6.) The notes are not guarantied by any of the Companys subsidiaries engaged in the real
estate businesses conducted through its subsidiary New Valley. Presented herein are unaudited
condensed consolidating balance sheets as of March 31, 2009 and December 31, 2008, the related
unaudited condensed consolidating statements of operations for the three months ended March 31,
2009 and 2008 and the unaudited condensed consolidated statements of cash flows for the three
months ended March 31, 2009 and 2008 of the Company (Parent/Issuer), the guarantor subsidiaries
(Subsidiary Guarantors) and the subsidiaries that are not guarantors (Subsidiary
Non-Guarantors).
The indenture contains covenants that restrict the payment of dividends by the Company if the
Companys consolidated earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization
(Consolidated EBITDA), as defined in the indenture, for the most recently ended four full
quarters is less than $50,000. The indenture also restricts the incurrence of debt if the
Companys Leverage Ratio and its Secured Leverage Ratio, as defined in the indenture, exceed
3.0 and 1.5, respectively. The Companys Leverage Ratio is defined in the indenture as the
ratio of the Companys and the guarantying subsidiaries total debt less the fair market value
of the Companys and the guarantying subsidiaries cash and cash equivalents, investments in
securities and long-term investments to Consolidated EBITDA, as defined in the indenture. The
Companys Secured Leverage Ratio is defined in the indenture in the same manner as the Leverage
Ratio, except that secured indebtedness is substituted for indebtedness.
-36-
VECTOR GROUP LTD.
NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Continued)
(Dollars in Thousands, Except Per Share Amounts)
Unaudited
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATING BALANCE SHEETS
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
March 31, 2009 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Subsidiary |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Consolidated |
|
|
|
Parent/ |
|
|
Subsidiary |
|
|
Non- |
|
|
Consolidating |
|
|
Vector Group |
|
|
|
Issuer |
|
|
Guarantors |
|
|
Guarantors |
|
|
Adjustments |
|
|
Ltd. |
|
ASSETS: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Current assets: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents |
|
$ |
192,300 |
|
|
$ |
10,043 |
|
|
$ |
6 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
202,349 |
|
Investment securities
available for sale |
|
|
24,418 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
78 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
24,496 |
|
Accounts receivable
trade |
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,756 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,756 |
|
Intercompany receivables |
|
|
102 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(102 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Inventories |
|
|
|
|
|
|
91,546 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
91,546 |
|
Deferred income taxes |
|
|
5,772 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(89 |
) |
|
|
5,683 |
|
Income taxes receivable |
|
|
|
|
|
|
10,160 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(10,160 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Restricted assets |
|
|
|
|
|
|
3,229 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3,229 |
|
Other current assets |
|
|
3,026 |
|
|
|
3,338 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6,364 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total current assets |
|
|
225,618 |
|
|
|
120,072 |
|
|
|
84 |
|
|
|
(10,351 |
) |
|
|
335,423 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Property, plant and equipment, net |
|
|
707 |
|
|
|
48,220 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
48,927 |
|
Mortgage receivable |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
12,704 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
12,704 |
|
Long-term investments accounted
for at cost |
|
|
50,332 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
786 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
51,118 |
|
Investments in non- consolidated
real estate businesses |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
44,058 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
44,058 |
|
Investments in consolidated
subsidiaries |
|
|
172,842 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(172,842 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Restricted assets |
|
|
3,961 |
|
|
|
2,142 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6,103 |
|
Deferred income taxes |
|
|
37,444 |
|
|
|
882 |
|
|
|
10,524 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
48,850 |
|
Intangible asset |
|
|
|
|
|
|
107,511 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
107,511 |
|
Prepaid pension costs |
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,991 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,991 |
|
Other assets |
|
|
11,760 |
|
|
|
13,781 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
25,541 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total assets |
|
$ |
502,664 |
|
|
$ |
295,599 |
|
|
$ |
68,156 |
|
|
$ |
(183,193 |
) |
|
$ |
683,226 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
LIABILITIES AND STOCKHOLDERS
EQUITY: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Current liabilities: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Current portion of notes
payable and long-term debt |
|
$ |
74,876 |
|
|
$ |
25,183 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
100,059 |
|
Current portion of employee
Benefits. |
|
|
21,840 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
21,840 |
|
Accounts payable |
|
|
312 |
|
|
|
5,645 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5,957 |
|
Intercompany payables |
|
|
|
|
|
|
102 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(102 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Accrued promotional
expenses |
|
|
|
|
|
|
9,589 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
9,589 |
|
Income taxes payable, net |
|
|
72,941 |
|
|
|
6 |
|
|
|
25,458 |
|
|
|
(10,160 |
) |
|
|
88,245 |
|
Accrued excise and payroll
taxes payable, net |
|
|
|
|
|
|
4,575 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4,575 |
|
Settlement accruals |
|
|
|
|
|
|
29,918 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
29,918 |
|
Deferred income taxes |
|
|
12,075 |
|
|
|
2,119 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(89 |
) |
|
|
14,105 |
|
Accrued interest |
|
|
5,074 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5,074 |
|
Other current liabilities |
|
|
2,104 |
|
|
|
8,390 |
|
|
|
671 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
11,165 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total current liabilities |
|
|
189,222 |
|
|
|
85,527 |
|
|
|
26,129 |
|
|
|
(10,351 |
) |
|
|
290,527 |
|
Notes payable, long-term debt and
other obligations, less current
portion |
|
|
191,112 |
|
|
|
18,149 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
209,261 |
|
Fair value of derivatives embedded
within convertible debt |
|
|
77,548 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
77,548 |
|
Non-current employee
benefits |
|
|
11,270 |
|
|
|
24,420 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
35,690 |
|
Deferred income
taxes |
|
|
27,514 |
|
|
|
20,427 |
|
|
|
109 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
48,050 |
|
Other liabilities |
|
|
425 |
|
|
|
15,147 |
|
|
|
1,005 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
16,577 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total liabilities |
|
|
497,091 |
|
|
|
163,670 |
|
|
|
27,243 |
|
|
|
(10,351 |
) |
|
|
677,653 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Commitments and contingencies |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Stockholders equity |
|
|
5,573 |
|
|
|
131,929 |
|
|
|
40,913 |
|
|
|
(172,842 |
) |
|
|
5,573 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total liabilities and
stockholders equity |
|
$ |
502,664 |
|
|
$ |
295,599 |
|
|
$ |
68,156 |
|
|
$ |
(183,193 |
) |
|
$ |
683,226 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
-37-
VECTOR GROUP LTD.
NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Continued)
(Dollars in Thousands, Except Per Share Amounts)
Unaudited
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATING BALANCE SHEETS
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31, 2008 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Subsidiary |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Consolidated |
|
|
|
Parent/ |
|
|
Subsidiary |
|
|
Non- |
|
|
Consolidating |
|
|
Vector Group |
|
|
|
Issuer |
|
|
Guarantors |
|
|
Guarantors |
|
|
Adjustments |
|
|
Ltd. |
|
ASSETS: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Current assets: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents |
|
$ |
200,066 |
|
|
$ |
11,039 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
211,105 |
|
Investment securities
available for sale |
|
|
28,440 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
78 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
28,518 |
|
Accounts receivable
trade |
|
|
|
|
|
|
9,506 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
9,506 |
|
Intercompany receivables |
|
|
1,938 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1,938 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Inventories |
|
|
|
|
|
|
92,581 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
92,581 |
|
Deferred income taxes |
|
|
3,304 |
|
|
|
338 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3,642 |
|
Income taxes receivable |
|
|
25,125 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(25,125 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Other current assets |
|
|
3,962 |
|
|
|
5,969 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
9,931 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total current assets |
|
|
263,835 |
|
|
|
119,433 |
|
|
|
78 |
|
|
|
(27,063 |
) |
|
|
355,283 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Property, plant and equipment, net |
|
|
735 |
|
|
|
49,956 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
50,691 |
|
Mortgage receivable |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
17,704 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
17,704 |
|
Long-term investments accounted for
at cost |
|
|
50,332 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
786 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
51,118 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Long-term investments accounted
under the equity method |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Investments in non- consolidated
real estate businesses |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
50,775 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
50,775 |
|
Investments in consolidated
subsidiaries |
|
|
164,917 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(164,917 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Restricted assets |
|
|
3,845 |
|
|
|
2,710 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6,555 |
|
Deferred income taxes |
|
|
37,177 |
|
|
|
870 |
|
|
|
7,175 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
45,222 |
|
Intangible asset |
|
|
|
|
|
|
107,511 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
107,511 |
|
Prepaid pension costs |
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,901 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,901 |
|
Other assets |
|
|
16,295 |
|
|
|
13,657 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
29,952 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total assets |
|
$ |
536,136 |
|
|
$ |
297,038 |
|
|
$ |
76,518 |
|
|
$ |
(191,980 |
) |
|
$ |
717,712 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
LIABILITIES AND STOCKHOLDERS EQUITY: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Current liabilities: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Current portion of notes
payable and long-term debt |
|
$ |
72,299 |
|
|
$ |
25,199 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
97,498 |
|
Current portion of employee
Benefits. |
|
|
21,840 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
21,840 |
|
Accounts payable |
|
|
2,168 |
|
|
|
3,936 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6,104 |
|
Intercompany payables |
|
|
|
|
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(3 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Accrued promotional
expenses |
|
|
|
|
|
|
10,131 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
10,131 |
|
Income taxes payable, net |
|
|
|
|
|
|
10,754 |
|
|
|
26,174 |
|
|
|
(25,125 |
) |
|
|
11,803 |
|
Accrued excise and payroll
taxes payable, net |
|
|
|
|
|
|
7,004 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
7,004 |
|
Settlement accruals |
|
|
|
|
|
|
20,668 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
20,668 |
|
Deferred income taxes |
|
|
81,961 |
|
|
|
10,546 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
92,507 |
|
Accrued interest |
|
|
9,612 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
9,612 |
|
Other current liabilities |
|
|
|
|
|
|
20,017 |
|
|
|
910 |
|
|
|
(1,935 |
) |
|
|
18,992 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total current liabilities |
|
|
187,880 |
|
|
|
108,258 |
|
|
|
27,084 |
|
|
|
(27,063 |
) |
|
|
296,159 |
|
Notes payable, long-term debt and
other obligations, less current
portion |
|
|
191,007 |
|
|
|
19,294 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
210,301 |
|
Fair value of derivatives embedded
within convertible debt |
|
|
77,245 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
77,245 |
|
Non-current employee
benefits |
|
|
17,388 |
|
|
|
17,468 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
34,856 |
|
Deferred income
taxes |
|
|
28,573 |
|
|
|
20,125 |
|
|
|
109 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
48,807 |
|
Other liabilities |
|
|
438 |
|
|
|
15,219 |
|
|
|
1,082 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
16,739 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total liabilities |
|
|
502,531 |
|
|
|
180,876 |
|
|
|
28,275 |
|
|
|
(27,575 |
) |
|
|
684,107 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Commitments and contingencies |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Stockholders equity |
|
|
33,605 |
|
|
|
116,674 |
|
|
|
48,243 |
|
|
|
(164,917 |
) |
|
|
33,605 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total liabilities and
stockholders equity |
|
$ |
536,136 |
|
|
$ |
297,038 |
|
|
$ |
77,118 |
|
|
$ |
(192,580 |
) |
|
$ |
717,712 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
-38-
VECTOR GROUP LTD.
NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Continued)
(Dollars in Thousands, Except Per Share Amounts)
Unaudited
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATING STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three Months Ended March 31, 2009 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Subsidiary |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Consolidated |
|
|
|
Parent/ |
|
|
Subsidiary |
|
|
Non- |
|
|
Consolidating |
|
|
Vector Group |
|
|
|
Issuer |
|
|
Guarantors |
|
|
Guarantors |
|
|
Adjustments |
|
|
Ltd. |
|
|
Revenues |
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
121,216 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
121,216 |
|
Expenses: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cost of goods sold |
|
|
|
|
|
|
72,526 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
72,526 |
|
Operating, selling,
administrative and
general expenses |
|
|
5,150 |
|
|
|
15,990 |
|
|
|
390 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
21,530 |
|
Gain on brand
transaction |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(5,000 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(5,000 |
) |
Restructuring
charges |
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,000 |
|
Management fee
expense |
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,056 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(2,056 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating income
(loss) |
|
|
(5,150 |
) |
|
|
34,644 |
|
|
|
(390 |
) |
|
|
2,056 |
|
|
|
31,160 |
|
Other income (expenses): |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interest and dividend
income |
|
|
75 |
|
|
|
75 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
150 |
|
Interest expense |
|
|
(15,794 |
) |
|
|
(280 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(16,074 |
) |
Changes in fair value
of derivatives
embedded within
convertible debt |
|
|
(303 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(303 |
) |
Impairment charges
on investments |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(8,500 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(8,500 |
) |
Equity loss on
non-consolidated
real estate
businesses |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(995 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(995 |
) |
Equity income in
consolidated
subsidiaries |
|
|
15,499 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(15,499 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Management fee income |
|
|
2,056 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(2,056 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Other, net |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income before
provision for income
taxes |
|
|
(3,617 |
) |
|
|
34,439 |
|
|
|
(9,885 |
) |
|
|
(15,499 |
) |
|
|
5,438 |
|
Income tax
benefit (expense) |
|
|
6,717 |
|
|
|
(13,119 |
) |
|
|
4,064 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(2,338 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income |
|
$ |
3,100 |
|
|
$ |
21,320 |
|
|
$ |
(5,821 |
) |
|
$ |
(15,499 |
) |
|
$ |
3,100 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
-39-
VECTOR GROUP LTD.
NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Continued)
(Dollars in Thousands, Except Per Share Amounts)
Unaudited
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATING STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three Months Ended March 31, 2008 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Subsidiary |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Consolidated |
|
|
|
Parent/ |
|
|
Subsidiary |
|
|
Non- |
|
|
Consolidating |
|
|
Vector Group |
|
|
|
Issuer |
|
|
Guarantors |
|
|
Guarantors |
|
|
Adjustments |
|
|
Ltd. |
|
|
Revenues |
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
132,205 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
132,205 |
|
Expenses: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cost of goods sold |
|
|
|
|
|
|
80,007 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
80,007 |
|
Operating, selling,
administrative and
general expenses |
|
|
7,194 |
|
|
|
16,568 |
|
|
|
395 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
24,157 |
|
Management fee
expense |
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,985 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1,985 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating income
(loss) |
|
|
(7,194 |
) |
|
|
33,645 |
|
|
|
(395 |
) |
|
|
1,985 |
|
|
|
28,041 |
|
Other income (expenses): |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interest and dividend
income |
|
|
1,896 |
|
|
|
75 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,971 |
|
Interest expense |
|
|
(14,671 |
) |
|
|
(582 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(15,253 |
) |
Changes in fair value
of derivatives
embedded within
convertible debt |
|
|
(2,444 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(2,444 |
) |
Equity income from
non-consolidated
real estate
businesses |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
13,320 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
13,320 |
|
Equity income in
consolidated
subsidiaries |
|
|
27,742 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(27,742 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Management fee income |
|
|
1,985 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1,985 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Other, net |
|
|
(569 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(4 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(573 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income before
provision for income
taxes |
|
|
6,745 |
|
|
|
33,138 |
|
|
|
12,921 |
|
|
|
(27,742 |
) |
|
|
25,062 |
|
Income tax
benefit (expense) |
|
|
7,562 |
|
|
|
(13,032 |
) |
|
|
(5,285 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(10,755 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income |
|
$ |
14,307 |
|
|
$ |
20,106 |
|
|
$ |
7,636 |
|
|
$ |
(27,742 |
) |
|
$ |
14,307 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
-40-
VECTOR GROUP LTD.
NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Continued)
(Dollars in Thousands, Except Per Share Amounts)
Unaudited
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATING STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three Months Ended March 31, 2009 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Subsidiary |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Consolidated |
|
|
|
Parent/ |
|
|
Subsidiary |
|
|
Non- |
|
|
Consolidating |
|
|
Vector Group |
|
|
|
Issuer |
|
|
Guarantors |
|
|
Guarantors |
|
|
Adjustments |
|
|
Ltd. |
|
|
Net cash provided by (used in)
operating activities |
|
$ |
23,102 |
|
|
$ |
7,037 |
|
|
$ |
333 |
|
|
$ |
(9,384 |
) |
|
$ |
21,088 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash flows from investing
activities: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Purchase of investment
securities |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Proceeds from sale or
liquidation of long-term
investments |
|
|
908 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
908 |
|
Purchase of mortgage
receivable |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Distributions from
non-consolidated real estate
businesses |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,182 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,182 |
|
Increase in cash surrender
value of life insurance
policies |
|
|
(244 |
) |
|
|
(112 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(356 |
) |
(Increase) decrease
in non-current restricted
assets |
|
|
(116 |
) |
|
|
568 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(2,171 |
) |
Investments in
subsidiaries |
|
|
(1,350 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,350 |
|
|
|
|
|
Capital expenditures |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(803 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(803 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash (used in) provided by
investing activities |
|
|
(802 |
) |
|
|
(347 |
) |
|
|
1,182 |
|
|
|
1,350 |
|
|
|
1,383 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash flows from
financing activities: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Proceeds from debt
Issuance |
|
|
|
|
|
|
10 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
10 |
|
Repayments of debt |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1,604 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1,604 |
) |
Borrowings under revolver |
|
|
|
|
|
|
123,724 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
123,724 |
|
Repayments on revolver |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(123,291 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(123,291 |
) |
Capital contributions received |
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,350 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1,350 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Intercompany dividends paid |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(7,875 |
) |
|
|
(1,509 |
) |
|
|
9,384 |
|
|
|
|
|
Dividends and distributions
on common stock |
|
|
(30,076 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(30,076 |
) |
Proceeds from exercise of
Vector options and warrants |
|
|
10 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
10 |
|
Tax benefit of options
exercised |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash provided by (used in)
financing activities |
|
|
(30,066 |
) |
|
|
(7,686 |
) |
|
|
(1,509 |
) |
|
|
8,034 |
|
|
|
(31,227 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net decrease in cash and cash
equivalents |
|
|
(7,766 |
) |
|
|
(996 |
) |
|
|
6 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(8,756 |
) |
Cash and cash equivalents,
beginning of period |
|
|
200,066 |
|
|
|
11,039 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
211,105 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents, end of
period |
|
$ |
192,300 |
|
|
$ |
10,043 |
|
|
$ |
6 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
202,349 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
-41-
VECTOR GROUP LTD.
NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Continued)
(Dollars in Thousands, Except Per Share Amounts)
Unaudited
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATING STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three Months Ended March 31, 2008 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Subsidiary |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Consolidated |
|
|
|
Parent/ |
|
|
Subsidiary |
|
|
Non- |
|
|
Consolidating |
|
|
Vector Group |
|
|
|
Issuer |
|
|
Guarantors |
|
|
Guarantors |
|
|
Adjustments |
|
|
Ltd. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash provided by (used in)
operating activities |
|
$ |
16,735 |
|
|
$ |
(4,689 |
) |
|
$ |
968 |
|
|
$ |
1,145 |
|
|
$ |
14,159 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash flows from investing
activities: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Purchase of investment
securities |
|
|
(5,182 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(5,182 |
) |
Proceeds from sale or
liquidation of long-term
investments |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
10 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
10 |
|
Purchase of mortgage
receivable |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(21,445 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(21,445 |
) |
Distributions from
non-consolidated real estate
businesses |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
15,822 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
15,822 |
|
Increase in cash surrender
value of life insurance
policies |
|
|
(101 |
) |
|
|
(42 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(143 |
) |
(Increase) decrease
in non-current restricted
assets |
|
|
(92 |
) |
|
|
(17 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(109 |
) |
Investments in
subsidiaries |
|
|
(1,000 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
Capital expenditures |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1,227 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1,227 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash used in
investing activities |
|
|
(6,375 |
) |
|
|
(1,286 |
) |
|
|
(5,613 |
) |
|
|
1,000 |
|
|
|
(12,274 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash flows from
financing activities: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Repayments of debt |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1,501 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1,501 |
) |
Deferred financing charges |
|
|
(99 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(99 |
) |
Borrowings under revolver |
|
|
|
|
|
|
128,429 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
128,429 |
|
Repayments on revolver |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(121,303 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(121,303 |
) |
Capital contributions received |
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,000 |
|
|
|
4,645 |
|
|
|
(5,645 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Intercompany dividends paid |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(3,500 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
3,500 |
|
|
|
|
|
Dividends and distributions
on common stock |
|
|
(26,717 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(26,717 |
) |
Proceeds from exercise of
Vector options and warrants |
|
|
13 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
13 |
|
Tax benefit of options
exercised |
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash provided by (used in)
financing activities |
|
|
(26,802 |
) |
|
|
3,125 |
|
|
|
4,645 |
|
|
|
(2,145 |
) |
|
|
(21,177 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net decrease in cash and cash
equivalents |
|
|
(16,442 |
) |
|
|
(2,850 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(19,292 |
) |
Cash and cash equivalents,
beginning of period |
|
|
228,901 |
|
|
|
9,216 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
238,117 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents, end of
period |
|
$ |
212,459 |
|
|
$ |
6,366 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
218,825 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
-42-
ITEM 2. MANAGEMENTS DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS
(Dollars in Thousands, Except Per Share Amounts)
Overview
We are a holding company and are engaged principally in:
|
|
|
the manufacture and sale of cigarettes in the United States through our subsidiary
Liggett Group LLC, |
|
|
|
|
the 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., and |
|
|
|
|
the real estate business through our subsidiary, New Valley LLC, which is seeking
to acquire additional operating companies and real estate properties. New Valley owns
50% of Douglas Elliman Realty, LLC, which operates the largest residential brokerage
company in the New York metropolitan area. |
All of Liggetts unit sales volume in 2008 and the first three months of 2009 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.
Liggetts cigarettes are produced in approximately 180 combinations of length, style and
packaging. Liggetts current brand portfolio includes:
|
|
|
LIGGETT SELECT the third largest brand in the deep discount category, |
|
|
|
|
GRAND PRIX a growing brand in the deep discount segment, |
|
|
|
|
EVE a leading brand of 120 millimeter cigarettes in the branded discount
category, |
|
|
|
|
PYRAMID the industrys first deep discount product with a brand identity, and |
|
|
|
|
USA and various Partner Brands and private label brands. |
In 1999, Liggett introduced LIGGETT SELECT, one of the leading brands in the deep discount
category. LIGGETT SELECTs unit volume was 30.1% and 25.4% of Liggetts unit volume for the year
ended December 31, 2008 and for the three months ended March 31, 2009, respectively. In September
2005, Liggett repositioned GRAND PRIX to distributors and retailers nationwide. GRAND PRIX is
marketed as the lowest price fighter to specifically compete with brands which are priced at the
lowest level of the deep discount segment. GRAND PRIX is now the largest seller in Liggetts
family of brands with 32.6% and 33.2% of Liggetts unit volume for the year ended December 31, 2008
and the three months ended March 31, 2009, respectively.
Under the Master Settlement Agreement reached in November 1998 with 46 states 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, Vector Tobacco has no payment obligation unless its market share exceeds
approximately 0.28% of the U.S. market. Liggetts and Vector Tobaccos payments under the Master
Settlement Agreement are based on each companys incremental market share above the
minimum threshold applicable to such company. We believe that Liggett has gained a
sustainable cost advantage over its competitors as a result of the settlement.
-43-
The discount segment is a challenging marketplace, with consumers having less brand loyalty
and placing greater emphasis on price. 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 America Inc., and Lorillard Tobacco Company, as well as the fourth
largest, Commonwealth Brands, Inc. (which Imperial Tobacco PLC acquired in 2007). 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.
Recent Developments
6.75% Variable Interest Senior Convertible Notes due 2014. On May 11, 2009, we issued in a
private placement $50,000 of Variable Interest Senior Convertible Notes due 2014. The purchase
price was paid in cash ($38,225) and by tendering $11,005 principal amount of the our 5% Variable
Interest Senior Convertible Notes due 2014, valued at 107% of principal amount. We will use the
net proceeds of the offering for general corporate purposes. The notes will pay interest (Total
Interest) on a quarterly basis at a rate of 3.75% per annum plus additional interest, which is
based on the amount of cash dividends paid during the prior three-month period ending on the record
date for such interest payment multiplied by the total number of shares of its common stock into
which the debt will be convertible on such record date. Notwithstanding the foregoing, however, the
interest payable on each interest payment date shall be the higher of (i) the Total Interest and
(ii) 6.75% per annum. The notes are convertible into our common stock at the holders option. The
conversion price of $15.04 per share is subject to adjustment for various events, including the
issuance of stock dividends. If a fundamental change (as defined in the indenture) occurs, we will
be required to offer to repurchase the notes at 100% of their principal amount, plus accrued
interest. The notes will mature on November 15, 2014. We will redeem on May 11, 2014 and at the
end of 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 purchaser of these notes is an entity affiliated with Dr. Phillip
Frost, who, prior to the consummation of the sale, may have been
deemed to beneficially own approximately 8.1% of our common stock.
Proposed and enacted excise tax increases. Effective April 1, 2009, the federal cigarette
excise tax was increased from $3.90 per carton ($0.39 per pack) to $10.07 per carton ($1.01 per
pack). Wholesale shipment volume for the three months ended March 31, 2009 compared to the same
period in 2008 for Liggett and for the total industry was negatively impacted by tax-driven trade
purchasing patterns in anticipation of the increase in the federal excise taxes on cigarettes.
This legislation included provisions that imposed this increase in excise taxes on inventory held
as of March 31, 2009. As a result, many wholesalers and retailers significantly reduced their
inventory levels as of March 31, 2009 to minimize any such taxes
owed on such inventory. In 2009, three states enacted increases to state excise taxes and further increases in
states excise taxes are expected.
Long-term Investments. We recorded a loss of $21,900 in 2008 due to the performance of three
of our long-term investments in various investment funds in 2008 and a loss of $567 during the
first quarter of 2008 associated with the liquidation of a long-term investment, which was included
as Other expense on our condensed statement of operations for the three months ended March 31,
2008.
-44-
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 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.
The Class B option became exercisable during the 90-day period beginning December 2, 2008 and
was exercised by Philip Morris on February 19, 2009. This option entitled Philip Morris to
purchase the Class B interest for $139,900, reduced by the amount previously distributed to Eve of
$134,900. In connection with the exercise of the Class B option, Philip Morris paid to Eve
approximately $5,000 (including a pro-rata share of its guaranteed payment) and Eve was released
from its guaranty. We recognized a gain of $5,000 in connection with the transaction in the first
quarter of 2009.
Vector Tobacco Restructuring. In March 2009, Vector Research eliminated nine full-time
positions in connection with the Board of Directors 2006 decision to discontinue the genetics
operation and, not to pursue FDA approval of QUEST as a smoking cessation aide, due to the
projected significant additional time and expense involved in seeking such approval.
We recognized pre-tax restructuring charges of $1,000, during the first quarter of 2009. The
restructuring charges relate to employee severance and benefit costs
Issuance of Restricted Shares. On April 7, 2009, our President and Chief Executive Officer
was awarded a restricted stock grant of 500,000 shares of our common stock pursuant to our Amended
and Restated 1999 Long-Term Incentive Plan. Under the terms of the award, one-fifth of the shares
vest on September 15, 2010, with an additional one-fifth vesting on each of the four succeeding
one-year anniversaries of the first vesting date through September 15, 2014. In the event that his
employment with us is terminated for any reason other than his death, his disability or a change of
control (as defined in this Restricted Share Agreement) of ours, any remaining balance of the
shares not previously vested will be forfeited by him. The fair market value of the restricted
shares on the date of grant was $6,468 which will be amortized over the vesting period as a charge
to compensation expense.
Mortgage receivable/Escena Project. In March 2008, a subsidiary of New Valley purchased a
loan secured by a substantial portion of a 450-acre approved master planned community in Palm
Springs, California known as Escena. The loan, which was in foreclosure, was purchased for its
$20,000 face value plus accrued interest and other costs of $1,445. The collateral consists of 867
residential lots with site and public infrastructure, an 18-hole golf course, a substantially
completed clubhouse, and a seven-acre site approved for a 450-room hotel.
In April 2009, New Valleys subsidiary entered into a settlement agreement with a guarantor of
the loan, which requires the guarantor to satisfy its obligations under a completion guaranty by
completing improvements to the project in settlement, among other things, of its payment
guarantees. In addition, the guarantor agreed to pay approximately $250 in legal fees and $1,000
of delinquent taxes and penalties and post a letter of credit to secure its construction
obligations. As a result of this settlement, we calculated the fair market value of the investment
as of March 31, 2009, utilizing the most recent as is appraisal of the collateral and the value
of the completion guaranty less estimated costs to dispose of the property. Based on these
estimates, we determined that the fair market value was less than the carrying amount of the
mortgage receivable at March 31, 2009, by approximately $5,000. Accordingly, the reserve was
increased and a charge of $5,000 was recorded for the three months ended March 31, 2009. We
carried the loan on our condensed balance sheet at its net basis of $12,704 as of March 31, 2009.
On
April 15, 2009 New Valley completed the foreclosure process and on April 16, 2009, took title
to the property.
-45-
Aberdeen Townhomes LLC. In June 2008, a subsidiary of New Valley purchased a preferred equity
interest in Aberdeen Townhomes LLC for $10,000. Aberdeen acquired five town home residences
located in Manhattan, New York, which it is in the process of rehabilitating and selling. In the
event that Aberdeen makes distributions of cash, New Valley is entitled to a priority preferred
return of 15% per annum until it has recovered its invested capital. New Valley is entitled to 25%
of subsequent cash distributions of profits until it has achieved an annual 18% internal rate of
return. New Valley is then entitled to 20% of subsequent cash distributions of profits until it
has achieved an annual 23% IRR. After New Valley has achieved an annual 23% IRR, it is then
entitled to 10% of any remaining cash distributions of profits.
In February 2009, the managing member of Aberdeen Townhomes resigned and a subsidiary of New
Valley became the new managing member as of March 1, 2009. Aberdeen is a variable interest entity;
however, even as the managing member, we are not the primary beneficiary as other parties to the
investment would absorb a majority of the variable interest entitys losses under the current
arrangement. Our maximum exposure to loss as a result of our investment in Aberdeen is $10,000.
This investment is being accounted for under the cost method.
In January 2009, we obtained an appraisal of the town home residences and determined that the
value of the properties, less estimated disposal costs, was approximately $3,500 less than their
carrying value and recorded an impairment charge for $3,500. In April 2009, we reevaluated the
fair market value of the town home residences and determined an additional decline in the value of
the properties of $3,500 had occurred and recorded an impairment charge of $3,500 for the three
months ended March 31, 2009. The reduction in value was attributed to the overall real estate
market conditions in New York City.
Four of the five notes related to the project with a balance of approximately $36,100 matured
on March 1, 2009 and have not been refinanced or paid and are in default. The remaining mortgage
with a balance of approximately $4,550 matures on September 30, 2009.
New Valley Oaktree Chelsea Eleven, LLC. In September 2008, a subsidiary of New Valley LLC
purchased for $12,000 a 40% interest in New Valley Oaktree Chelsea Eleven, LLC, which lent $29,000
and contributed $1,000 in capital to Chelsea Eleven LLC, which is developing a condominium project
in Manhattan, New York. The development consists of 72 luxury residential units and one commercial
unit. Approximately 75% of the units have been pre-sold and approximately $35,000 in deposits
held in escrow. The loan from New Valley Oaktree is subordinate to a $110,000 construction loan
and a $24,000 mezzanine loan plus accrued interest. The loan from New Valley Oaktree to Chelsea
Eleven bears interest at 60.25% per annum, compounded monthly, with
$3,750 initially being held in an
interest reserve, from which five monthly payments of $300 have been paid to New Valley.
New Valley Chelsea is a variable interest entity; however, we are not the primary beneficiary.
Our maximum exposure to loss as a result of our investment in Chelsea is $12,000. This investment
is being accounted for under the equity method.
Sale of St. Regis Hotel. In March 2008, 16th and K Holdings LLC closed on the sale of 90% of
the St. Regis Hotel. In addition to retaining a 3% interest, net of incentives, in the St. Regis
Hotel, New Valley received $16,406 upon the sale of the hotel. New Valley anticipates receiving an
additional $3,400 in various installments between 2009 and 2012. We recorded the $16,406 as an
investing activity in the consolidated statement of cash flows for the year ended December 31,
2008. New Valley recorded equity losses of $3,796 for the three months ended March 31, 2008
associated with 16th and K Holdings LLC. For the three months ended March 31, 2008, New Valley
also recorded equity income of $15,779 in connection with the distributions received in
excess of the carrying amount of the investment in St. Regis and we have no legal obligation
to make additional investments to the investment.
-46-
Tobacco Settlement Agreements. In October 2004, the independent auditor under the Master
Settlement Agreement notified Liggett and all other Participating Manufacturers that their payment
obligations under the Master Settlement Agreement, dating from the agreements execution in late
1998, had been recalculated using net unit amounts, rather than gross unit amounts (which had
been used since 1999 to calculate market share and the allocation of the base amount of payments
under the Master Settlement Agreement). The change in the method of calculation could, among other
things, require additional Master Settlement Agreement payments by Liggett of approximately
$20,875, plus interest, for 2001 through 2008, require an additional payment of approximately
$3,100 for 2009 and require additional amounts in future periods because the proposed change from
gross to net units would serve to lower Liggetts market share exemption under the Master
Settlement Agreement. Liggett has objected to this retroactive change and has disputed the change
in methodology. No amounts have been accrued or expensed in our condensed financial statements for
any potential liability relating to the gross versus net dispute because we do not believe an
unfavorable outcome is probable.
In 2005, the independent auditor under the Master Settlement Agreement calculated that Liggett
owed $28,668 for its 2004 sales. Liggett paid $11,678 and disputed the balance, as permitted by
the Master Settlement Agreement. Liggett subsequently paid $9,304 of the disputed amount, although
Liggett continues to dispute that this amount is owed. This $9,304 relates to an adjustment to its
2003 payment obligation claimed by Liggett for the market share loss to non-participating
manufacturers, which is known as the NPM Adjustment. At March 31, 2009, included in Other
assets on our condensed balance sheet was a receivable of $6,513 relating to such amount. The
remaining balance in dispute of $7,686 is comprised of $5,318 claimed for a 2004 NPM Adjustment and
$2,368 relating to the independent auditors retroactive change from gross to net units in
calculating Master Settlement Agreement payments, which Liggett contends is improper, as discussed
above. From its April 2006 payment, Liggett and Vector Tobacco withheld approximately $1,600
claimed for the 2005 NPM Adjustment and $2,949 relating to the retroactive change from gross to
net units. Liggett and Vector Tobacco withheld approximately $4,200 from their April 2007
payments related to the 2006 NPM Adjustment and approximately $3,950 relating to the retroactive
change from gross to net units. From their April 2008 payment, Liggett and Vector Tobacco
withheld approximately $4,000 for the 2007 NPM Adjustment and approximately $3,696 related to the
retroactive change from gross to net units. Vector Tobacco paid approximately $200 into the
disputed payments account for the 2007 NPM Adjustment. From their April 2009 payment, Liggett and
Vector Tobacco withheld approximately $6,100 relating to the 2008 NPM adjustment and approximately
$3,300 relating to the retroactive change from gross to net units.
The following amounts have not been expensed in our condensed financial statements as they
relate to Liggetts and Vector Tobaccos claim for an NPM Adjustment: $6,513 for 2003, $3,789 for
2004 and $800 for 2005.
In March 2006, an economic consulting firm selected pursuant to the Master Settlement
Agreement rendered its final and non-appealable decision that the Master Settlement Agreement was a
significant factor contributing to the loss of market share of Participating Manufacturers for
2003. The economic consulting firm subsequently rendered the same decision with respect to 2004,
2005 and 2006. As a result, the manufacturers are entitled to potential NPM Adjustments to their
2003, 2004, 2005 and 2006 Master Settlement Agreement payments. A Settling State that has
diligently enforced its qualifying escrow statute in the year in question may be able to avoid
application of the NPM Adjustment to the payments made by the manufacturers for the benefit of that
state or territory.
-47-
Since April 2006, notwithstanding provisions in the Master Settlement Agreement requiring
arbitration, litigation has been filed in 49 Settling States over the issue of
whether the application of the NPM Adjustment for 2003 is to be determined through litigation or
arbitration. These actions relate to the potential NPM Adjustment for 2003, which the independent
auditor under the Master Settlement Agreement previously determined to be as much as $1,200,000 for
all Participating Manufacturers. All 48 courts that have decided the issue have ruled that the
2003 NPM Adjustment dispute is arbitrable and 46 of these decisions are final. In response to a
proposal from the Original Participating Manufacturers and many of the Subsequent Participating
Manufacturers, 45 of the Settling States, representing approximately 90% of the allocable share of
the Settling States, entered into an agreement providing for a nationwide arbitration of the
dispute with respect to the NPM Adjustment for 2003. The agreement provides for selection of the
arbitration panel beginning October 1, 2009 and that the parties and the arbitrators will
thereafter establish the schedule and procedures for the arbitration. Because states representing
more than 80% of the allocable share signed the agreement, signing states will receive a 20%
reduction of any potential 2003 NPM adjustment.. It is anticipated that the arbitration will begin
in 2010. There can be no assurance that Liggett or Vector Tobacco will receive any adjustment as a
result of these proceedings.
Vector Tobacco does not make MSA payments on sales of its QUEST 3 product as Vector Tobacco
believes that QUEST 3 does not fall within the definition of a cigarette under the MSA. There can
be no assurance that Vector Tobaccos assessment is correct and that additional payments under the
MSA for QUEST 3 will not be owed.
In 2003, in order to resolve any potential issues with Minnesota as to Liggetts ongoing
economic settlement obligations, Liggett negotiated a $100 a year payment to Minnesota, to be paid
any year cigarettes manufactured by Liggett are sold in that state. 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 respective settlement agreements with these 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 nation provisions of the settlement agreements.
Except for $2,500 accrued as of March 31, 2009, in connection with the foregoing matters, no
other amounts have been accrued in the accompanying condensed financial statements for any
additional amounts that may be payable by Liggett under the settlement agreements with Florida,
Mississippi and Texas. There can be no assurance that Liggett will resolve these matters and that
Liggett will not be required to make additional material payments, which payments could adversely
affect our condensed consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows.
Recent Developments in Tobacco-Related 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 March 31, 2009, there were
approximately 3,290 individual suits (excluding approximately 100 individual cases pending in West
Virginia state court as part of a consolidated action; Liggett has been severed from the trial of
the consolidated action), seven purported class actions and three governmental and other
third-party payor health care reimbursement actions pending in the United States in which Liggett
or us, or both, were named as a defendant. Additionally, a third-party payor health care
reimbursement action is pending against Liggett in Israel.
-48-
Class action suits have been filed in a number of states against individual cigarette
manufacturers, alleging, among other things, that the use of the terms light and ultralight
constitutes unfair and deceptive trade practices. In Altria Group Inc. v. Good, et al., the United
States Supreme Court ruled that the Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act did not preempt
certain state law claims in Maine. This ruling may result in additional class action cases in
other states. Liggett is not a party in this case. One such suit
(Schwab, et al. [McLaughlin] v. Philip Morris),
pending in federal court in New York since 2004, seeks to create a nationwide class of light
cigarette smokers and includes Liggett as a defendant. The action asserts claims under the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO). The proposed class is seeking as much as
$200,000,000 in damages, which could be trebled under RICO. In November 2005, the court ruled that
the plaintiffs would be permitted to calculate damages on an aggregate basis and use fluid
recovery theories to allocate them among class members, if the class is certified. Fluid recovery
would permit potential damages to be paid out in ways other than merely giving cash directly to
plaintiffs, such as establishing a pool of money that could be used for public purposes. In
September 2006, the court granted plaintiffs motion for class certification. In April 2008, the
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit decertified the class. The case was
returned to the trial court for further proceedings. Liggett is a defendant in the Schwab case.
There are currently six individual tobacco-related actions pending where Liggett is the only
tobacco company defendant. In April 2004, in one of these cases, a jury in a Florida state court
action awarded compensatory damages of $540 against Liggett, plus interest. This award is final.
In addition, plaintiffs counsel was awarded legal fees of $752. Liggett appealed the legal fees
award. In March 2008, the Fourth District Court of Appeals reversed and remanded the legal fee
award for further proceedings in the trial court. We have accrued approximately $1,499 for
plaintiffs claim for attorney fees and costs. In February 2009, a Florida state court jury
awarded compensatory damages of $1,200 against Liggett in another of these cases, but found that
the plaintiff was 40% at fault. Therefore, plaintiff was awarded $720 in compensatory damages plus
$96 in expenses. Liggett has appealed the award. On May 1, 2009, the court granted plaintiffs
motion for an award of attorneys fees but the amount has yet to be determined. Punitive damages
were not awarded.
In May 2003, Floridas Third District Court of Appeal reversed a $790,000 punitive damages
award against Liggett and decertified the Engle smoking and health class action. In July 2006, the
Florida Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the May 2003 intermediate appellate
court decision. Among other things, the Florida Supreme Court affirmed the decision vacating the
punitive damages award and held that the claim should be decertified prospectively, but preserved
several of the Phase I findings (including that: (i) smoking causes lung cancer, among other
diseases; (ii) nicotine in cigarettes is addictive; (iii) defendants placed cigarettes on the
market that were defective and unreasonably dangerous; (iv) the defendants concealed material
information; (v) all defendants sold or supplied cigarettes that were defective; and (vi) all
defendants were negligent) and allowed plaintiffs to proceed to trial on individual liability
issues (using the above findings) and compensatory and punitive damage issues, provided they
commence their individual lawsuits within one year of the date the courts decision became final on
January 11, 2007, the date of the courts mandate. In December 2006, the Florida Supreme Court
added the finding that defendants sold or supplied cigarettes that, at the time of sale or supply,
did not conform to the representations made by defendants. Class counsel filed motions for
attorneys fees and costs, which motions are pending. There are approximately 3,200 Engle progeny
cases, in state and federal courts in Florida, where either Liggett (and other cigarette
manufacturers) or us, or both, were named as defendants. These cases include approximately 8,750
plaintiffs. In June 2002, the jury in Lukacs v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, an individual case
brought under the third phase of the Engle case, awarded $37,500, plus interest, (subsequently
reduced by the court to $24,835) of compensatory damages, jointly and severally, against Liggett
and two other cigarette manufacturers and found Liggett 50% responsible for the damages. In
November 2008, the court entered final judgment. The defendants have appealed. The plaintiffs are
seeking an award of attorneys fees from Liggett. Liggett and plaintiffs have been in discussions
regarding the posting of a bond for the appeal. 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.
-49-
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 condensed consolidated financial position, results of operations or
cash flows could be materially adversely affected by an unfavorable outcome in any tobacco-related
litigation.
Critical Accounting Policies
There are no material changes from the critical accounting policies set forth in Item 7,
Managements Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations, of our
Annual Report on Form 10-K, for the year ended December 31, 2008, except for the changes set forth
below. Please refer to that section and the information below for disclosures regarding the
critical accounting policies related to our business.
Recently Adopted Accounting Pronouncements. Effective January 1, 2008, we adopted Statement
of Financial Accounting Standards No. 157, Fair Value Measurements, (SFAS No. 157) for
financial assets and financial liabilities. SFAS No. 157 does not require any new fair value
measurements but provides a definition of fair value, establishes a framework for measuring fair
value, and expands disclosure about fair value measurements. On January 1, 2009, we adopted SFAS
157 as it relates to nonfinancial assets and nonfinancial liabilities that are not recognized or
disclosed at fair value in the financial statements on at least an annual basis. SFAS 157 defines
fair value, establishes a framework for measuring fair value in accounting principles generally
accepted in the United States of America (GAAP), and expands disclosures about fair value
measurements. The provisions of this standard apply to other accounting pronouncements that require
or permit fair value measurements and are to be applied prospectively with limited exceptions. The
provisions of SFAS 157 were applied when the fair value measurement of two nonfinancial assets and
one nonfinancial liability resulted in an impairment as of March 31, 2009. See Note 11 to our
condensed consolidated financial statements.
On January 1, 2009 we adopted SFAS No. 141(R), a revised version of SFAS No. 141, Business
Combinations and FSP No. 141(R)-1, Accounting for Assets Acquired and Liabilities Assumed in a
Business Combination that Arise from Contingencies. The revision is intended to simplify existing
guidance and converge rulemaking under U.S. GAAP with international accounting rules. The standard
did not have an impact on our condensed consolidated financial statements.
On January 1, 2009, we adopted SFAS No. 161, Disclosures about Derivative Instruments and
Hedging Activities-an amendment of FASB Statement No. 133. SFAS No. 161 seeks qualitative
disclosures about the objectives and strategies for using derivatives, quantitative data about the
fair value of and gains and losses on derivative contracts, and details of credit-risk-related
contingent features in hedged positions. SFAS No. 161 also seeks enhanced disclosure around
derivative instruments in financial statements, accounting under SFAS No. 133, Accounting for
Derivative Instruments and Hedging Activities, and how hedges affect an entitys financial
position, financial performance and cash flows. The adoption of SFAS No. 161 did not have a
material impact on our condensed consolidated financial statements.
On January 1. 2009, we adopted FASB Staff Position No. APB 14-1, Accounting for Convertible
Debt Instruments That May Be Settled in Cash upon Conversion (Including Partial
Cash Settlement) (FSP No. APB 14-1). The adoption of FSP No. APB 14-1 did not have an
impact on our condensed consolidated financial statements.
-50-
On January 1, 2009, we adopted FSP No. EITF 03-6-1, Determining Whether Instruments Granted
in Share-Based Payment Transactions Are Participating Securities, (FSP EITF 03-6-1). FSP EITF
03-6-1 states that unvested share-based payment awards that contain nonforfeitable rights to
dividends or dividend equivalents (whether paid or unpaid) are participating securities and shall
be included in the computation of earnings per share pursuant to the two-class method. The adoption
of FSP EITF 03-6-1 did not have an impact on our condensed consolidated financial statements.
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 condensed consolidated financial
statements and related notes included elsewhere in this report. The condensed consolidated
financial statements include the accounts of VGR Holding, Liggett, Vector Tobacco, Liggett Vector
Brands, New Valley and other less significant subsidiaries.
For purposes of this discussion and other condensed consolidated financial reporting, our
significant business segments for the three months ended March 31, 2009 and 2008 were Liggett and
Vector Tobacco. The Liggett segment consists of the manufacture and sale of conventional
cigarettes and, for segment reporting purposes, includes the operations of the Medallion Company,
Inc. (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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three Months Ended |
|
|
|
March 31, |
|
|
|
March 31, |
|
|
|
2009 |
|
|
|
2008 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Revenues: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Liggett |
|
$ |
120,887 |
|
|
|
$ |
131,645 |
|
Vector Tobacco |
|
|
329 |
|
|
|
|
560 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total revenues |
|
$ |
121,216 |
|
|
|
$ |
132,205 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating income (loss): |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Liggett |
|
$ |
38,410 |
|
|
|
$ |
37,344 |
|
Vector Tobacco |
|
|
(2,785 |
) |
|
|
|
(2,410 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total tobacco |
|
|
35,625 |
|
|
|
|
34,934 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Corporate and other |
|
|
(4,465 |
) |
|
|
|
(6,893 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total operating income |
|
$ |
31,160 |
|
|
|
$ |
28,041 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three Months Ended March 31, 2009 Compared to Three Months ended March 31, 2008
Revenues. Total revenues were $121,216 for the three months ended March 31, 2009 compared to
$132,205 for the three months ended March 31, 2008. This $10,989 (8.3%) decrease in revenues was
primarily due to a decline in sales volume in anticipation of the excise tax increase effective
April 1, 2009. Revenues at Liggett decreased $10,758 (8.2%) and revenues at Vector Tobacco
decreased $231 (41.3%) for the three months ended March 31, 2009.
-51-
Tobacco Revenues. In April 2008, Liggett increased the list price of GRAND PRIX by $0.40 per
carton. In addition, in April 2008, Liggett decreased the early payment terms on its cigarettes
from 2.75% to 2.25% of invoice amount. In August 2008, Liggett increased the list price of LIGGETT
SELECT, EVE and GRAND PRIX by $1.00 per carton. Liggett increased the list price of LIGGETT SELECT
and EVE by $0.90 per carton in February 2009 and an additional
$7.10 per carton in March 2009.
Liggett increased the list price of GRAND PRIX by $7.20 per carton in March 2009.
All of Liggetts sales for the first quarter of 2009 and 2008 were in the discount category.
For the three months ended March 31, 2009, net sales at Liggett totaled $120,887, compared to
$131,645 for the three months ended March 31, 2008. Revenues decreased by 8.2% ($10,758) due to a
16.7% decrease in unit sales volume (approximately 345.4 units) accounting for $21,939 in
unfavorable volume variance and $675 in unfavorable sales mix. Wholesale shipment volume for the
three months ended March 31, 2009 compared to the same period in 2008 for Liggett and for the total
industry was negatively impacted by tax-driven trade purchasing
patterns in anticipation of the increase ($6.17 per carton) in the federal excise tax on cigarettes from $3.90 to $10.07 per carton on April 1,
2009. This legislation included provisions that imposed this increase in excise taxes on inventory
held as of March 31, 2009. As a result, many wholesalers and retailers significantly reduced their
inventory levels as of March 31, 2009 to minimize any such taxes
owed on such inventory. Although it is difficult to predict the full impact of the significant price increases
in connection with the increase in federal excise tax on consumption, Liggetts and industry
shipment volume declines for the full-year 2009 are expected to be higher than prior years.
The unfavorable volume and sales mix was partially offset by $11,804 favorable variance in
pricing. Net revenues of the LIGGETT SELECT brand decreased $8,318 for the first quarter of 2009
compared to 2008, and its unit volume decreased 29.1% (180.3 million units) in the 2009 period
compared to 2008. Net revenues of the GRAND PRIX brand decreased $957 for the first quarter of
2009 compared to the 2008 and its unit volume decreased 14.0% (93.7 million units).
Revenues at Vector Tobacco for the three months ended March 31, 2009 were $329 compared to
$560 in the 2008 period due to decreased sales volume. Vector Tobaccos revenues in both periods
related to sales of QUEST.
Tobacco Gross Profit. Tobacco gross profit was $48,689 for the three months ended March 31,
2009 compared to $52,198 for the three months ended March 31, 2008. This represented a decrease of
$3,509 (6.7%) when compared to the same period last year, due primarily to lower sales volume.
Liggetts brands contributed 99.9% to our gross profit and Vector Tobacco contributed 0.1% for the
three months ended March 31, 2009. Over the same period in 2008, Liggetts brands contributed
99.7% to tobacco gross profit and Vector Tobacco contributed 0.3%.
Liggetts gross profit of $48,649 for the three months ended March 31, 2009 decreased $3,377
from gross profit of $52,026 for the three months ended March 31, 2008. This decrease in Liggetts
gross profit in the 2009 period was attributable primarily to decreased sales volume. As a percent
of revenues (excluding federal excise taxes), gross profit at Liggett decreased to 56.0% for the
three months ended March 31, 2009 compared to gross profit of 57.2% for the three months ended
March 31, 2008.
Vector Tobaccos gross profit was $40 for the three months ended March 31, 2009 compared to
gross profit of $172 for the same period in 2008. The decrease was primarily due to lower sales
volume.
-52-
Expenses. Operating, selling, general and administrative expenses were $21,530 for the three
months ended March 31, 2009 compared to $24,157 for the same period last year, a decrease of $2,627
(10.9%). Expenses at Liggett were $15,239 for the three months ended March 31, 2009
compared to $14,682 for the same period in the prior year, an increase of $557 or 3.8%, which
was the result of higher pension expenses partially offset by lower compensation expenses in the
2009 period. Liggetts product liability legal expenses and other litigation costs were $1,387 and
$1,363 for the three months ended March 31, 2009 and 2008, respectively. Expenses at Vector
Tobacco for the three months ended March 31, 2009 were $1,825, excluding restructuring of $1,000,
compared to expenses of $2,582 for the three months ended March 31, 2008. Expenses at the
corporate level decreased from $6,893 to $4,465 due primarily to
lower compensation expense and expenses associated with our
Supplemental Retirement Plan in 2009 due to the retirement of our former Executive Chairman on
December 30, 2008.
For the three months ended March 31, 2009, Liggetts operating income increased $1,066 to
$38,410 compared to $37,344 for the same period in 2008 primarily due to a gain of $5,000 on the
Philip Morris brands transaction. For the three months ended March 31, 2009, Vector Tobaccos
operating loss was $2,785 compared to a loss of $2,410 for the three months ended March 31, 2008.
Other expenses. Other expenses were $25,722 for the three months ended March 31, 2009
compared to $2,979 for the same period last year, an increase of $22,743. For the three months
ended March 31, 2009, other expenses primarily consisted of interest expense of $16,074, a loss of
$8,500 associated with a decline in value in the Escena mortgage receivable ($5,000) and the
Aberdeen real estate investment ($3,500), equity losses of $995 on non-consolidated real estate
businesses, and interest expense of $303 for changes in fair value of derivatives embedded within
convertible debt. For the three months ended March 31, 2008, other expenses consisted primarily of
equity income from non-consolidated real estate businesses of $13,320 and interest and dividend
income of $1,971 offset by interest expense of $15,253, changes in fair value of derivatives
embedded within convertible debt of $2,444 and a loss of $567 associated with the performance of an
investment partnership. The equity income of $13,320 for the 2008 period included $1,337 from New
Valleys investment in Douglas Elliman Realty and $11,983 from 16th and K, which consisted of
equity losses from the operations of the St. Regis hotel of $3,796 and income of $15,779 in
connection with the gain on the disposal of 16th and Ks interest in 90% of the St. Regis Hotel in
Washington D.C.
The value of the embedded derivatives is contingent on changes in interest rates of debt
instruments maturing over the duration of the convertible debt, our stock price as well as
projections of future cash and stock dividends over the term of the debt. The loss of $303 from
the embedded derivatives in the three month months ended March 31, 2009, was primarily the result
of decreasing spreads between corporate convertible debt and risk free investments offset by
interest payments during the period. The loss from the embedded derivatives in the three months
ended March 31, 2008, was primarily the result of declining interest rates offset by the payment of
interest during the period.
Income before income taxes. Income before income taxes for the three months ended March 31,
2009 was $5,438 compared to income before income taxes of $25,062 for the three months ended March
31, 2008.
Income tax provision. The income tax provision was $2,338 and $10,755 for the three months
ended March 31, 2009 and 2008, respectively. Our income tax rates for the three months ended March
31, 2009 and 2008 do not bear a customary relationship to statutory income tax rates as a result of
the impact of nondeductible expenses, state income taxes and interest and penalties accrued on
unrecognized tax benefits offset by the impact of the domestic production activities deduction.
Our provision for income taxes in interim periods is based on an estimated annual effective income
tax rate derived, in part, from estimated annual pre-tax results from ordinary operations in
accordance with FIN 18, Accounting for Income Taxes in Interim Periodsan interpretation of APB
Opinion No. 28. For the three months ended March 31, 2008, our income tax provision was reduced
because of the
impact of the gain on the income from our investment in the St. Regis Hotel, which reduced income
tax expense by $460 due to differences in our marginal tax rate of approximately 41% and our
anticipated effective annual income tax rate from ordinary operations of approximately 45%.
-53-
We are being audited by the Internal Revenue Service for the taxable year ended December 31,
2005. We believe we have adequately reserved for any potential adjustments that may arise as a
result of the audit.
Liquidity and Capital Resources
Net cash and cash equivalents decreased $8,756 and $19,292 for the three months ended March
31, 2009 and 2008, respectively.
Net cash provided from operations was $21,088 and $14,159 for the three months ended March 31,
2009 and 2008, respectively. The difference between the two periods relates primarily to increased
provision for losses on investments of $8,500 and decreased accounts receivable of $1,000 in 2009
compared to 2008.
Cash provided by investing activities was $1,383 for the three months ended March 31, 2009
compared to cash used in investing activities of $12,274 for the same period in 2008. In the first
three months of 2009, cash provided by investing activities was from the proceeds from the
liquidation of long-term investments of $908, the distributions from non-consolidated real estate
businesses of $1,182, and the decrease in non-current restricted assets of $452 offset by cash used
for capital expenditures of $803 and an increase in cash surrender value of corporate- owned life
insurance policies of $356. In the first three months of 2008, cash was used for the purchase of
the mortgage receivable of $21,445, the purchase of investment securities of $5,182, capital
expenditures of $1,227, an increase in the cash surrender value of corporate-owned life insurance
policies of $143, an increase in restricted assets of $109, offset primarily by distributions from
non-consolidated real estate businesses of $15,822.
Cash used in financing activities was $31,227 and $21,177 for the three months ended March 31,
2009 and 2008, respectively. In the first three months of 2009, cash was primarily used for
distributions on common stock of $30,076, and repayments of debt of $1,604 offset by net borrowings
of debt under the revolver of $433. In the first three months of 2008, cash was primarily used for
distributions on common stock of $26,717 and repayments of debt of $1,501 offset by net borrowings
of debt under the revolver of $7,126.
Liggett. Liggett has a $50,000 credit facility with Wachovia Bank, N.A. under which $19,948
was outstanding at March 31, 2009. Availability as determined under the facility was approximately
$12,917 based on eligible collateral at March 31, 2009. The facility contains covenants that
provide that Liggetts earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization, as defined
under the facility, on a trailing twelve-month basis, shall not be less than $100,000 if Liggetts
excess availability, as defined, under the facility is less than $20,000. The covenants also
require that annual capital expenditures, as defined under the facility, (before a maximum
carryover amount of $2,500) shall not exceed $10,000 during any fiscal year. At March 31, 2009,
management believed that Liggett was in compliance with all covenants under the credit facility;
Liggetts EBITDA, as defined, were approximately $154,000 for the twelve months ended March 31,
2009.
-54-
Liggett and other United States cigarette manufacturers have been named as defendants in a
number of direct, third-party and purported class actions predicated on the theory that they should
be liable for damages alleged to have been caused by cigarette smoking or by exposure to secondary
smoke from cigarettes. We believe, and have been so advised by counsel handling the respective
cases, that Liggett has a number of valid defenses to claims asserted against it,
however, litigation is subject to many uncertainties. 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 $24,835) of compensatory damages against Liggett and two other defendants and found
Liggett 50% responsible for the damages. It is possible that additional cases could be decided
unfavorably. There are approximately 3,200 Engle progeny cases, in state and federal courts in
Florida, where either Liggett (and other cigarette manufacturers) or us, or both, were named as
defendants. These cases include approximately 8,750 plaintiffs. Approximately 45 cases are
currently scheduled for trial, or likely to be scheduled for trial, in 2009 and 2010. To date,
three Engle progeny cases have gone to trial resulting in one plaintiff verdict and two defense
verdicts. Liggett was not a party in these cases. 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 8 to our condensed consolidated financial
statements and Legislation and Regulation below for a description of legislation, regulation and
litigation.
Except in the case of one individual claim, management is unable to make a reasonable estimate
of the amount or range of loss that could result from an unfavorable outcome of the cases pending
against Liggett or the costs of defending such cases. It is possible that our condensed
consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows could be materially adversely
affected by an unfavorable outcome in any such tobacco-related litigation.
Vector. We believe that we will continue to meet our liquidity requirements over the next 12
months. Our corporate expenditures (exclusive of Liggett, Vector Research, Vector Tobacco and New
Valley) and other potential liquidity requirements over the next 12 months include:
|
|
|
cash interest expense of approximately $53,500, |
|
|
|
|
dividends on our outstanding common shares (currently at an annual rate of
approximately $116,500), |
|
|
|
|
a payment of a retirement benefit under our Supplemental Retirement Plan in July 2009
to our former Executive Chairman of approximately $20,900, |
|
|
|
|
the mandatory redemption by November 15, 2009 of approximately $12,600 of the
outstanding principal amount of our 5% Variable Interest Senior Convertible Notes, and the
possible redemption of an additional approximately $88,250 principal amount of 5% Notes as
a result of an option by the holders to require us to repurchase some or all of the
remaining principal amount of 5% Notes on November 15, 2009, and |
|
|
|
|
other corporate expenses and taxes, including a tax payment of approximately $75,500 in
connection with the Philip Morris brands transaction. |
In order to meet the above liquidity requirements as well as other anticipated liquidity needs
in the normal course of business, we had cash and cash equivalents of approximately $202,000,
investment securities available for sale of approximately $24,500, long-term investments with an
estimated value of approximately $55,000 and availability under Liggetts credit facility of
approximately $12,900 at March 31, 2009. Management currently anticipates that these amounts, as
well as expected cash flows from our operations and the proceeds from the private placement in May
2009 of convertible notes, should be sufficient to meet our liquidity needs during 2009.
-55-
Based on the recent market value of our 5% Variable Interest Convertible Notes, we do not
currently anticipate that the holders of these Notes will exercise their right to require
redemption of the additional Notes on November 15, 2009. However, no assurance can be provided
that we will not be required to redeem these 5% Notes at that time.
In the event our existing cash and cash equivalents, cash flows from operations and the
proceeds from the private placement are not sufficient to meet our liquidity needs over the next 12
months, we have the ability to take other actions to provide the liquidity needed over the next 12
months. These actions may include, among other things, additional debt or equity financing, which
in the current economic environment may not be available or may only be available at an increased
cost; incenting the holders of our 5% Notes, prior to November 15, 2009, when the holders have the
option to require redemption of their 5% Notes, to convert such 5% Notes or to modify the optional
redemption terms, through issuance of additional shares of our common stock or cash payments;
modifying our dividend policy (which would also reduce the amount of cash interest due on our
convertible debt); and selling some or all of our investment securities and long-term investments,
the proceeds from which may be impacted by our ability to liquidate such investments. However, no
assurances can be provided that all of the above measures can be achieved.
We currently anticipate funding our expenditures for current operations and required principal
payments with available cash resources, proceeds from public and/or private debt and equity
financing, the other actions described above, management fees and other payments from subsidiaries.
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.
On
May 11, 2009, we agreed to issue in a private placement $50,000 of Variable Interest Senior
Convertible Notes due 2014. The purchase price was paid in cash ($38,225) and by tendering $11,005
principal amount of our 5%Variable Interest Senior Convertible Notes due 2014, valued at 107% of
principal amount. We will use the net proceeds of the offering for general corporate purposes.
The notes will pay interest (Total Interest) on a quarterly basis at a rate of 3.75% per annum
plus additional interest, which is based on the amount of cash dividends paid during the prior
three-month period ending on the record date for such interest payment multiplied by the total
number of shares of its common stock into which the debt will be convertible on such record date.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, however, the interest payable on each interest payment date shall be
the higher of (i) the Total Interest and (ii) 6.75% per annum. The Notes are convertible into our
common stock at the holders option. The conversion price of $15.04 per share is subject to
adjustment for various events, including the issuance of stock dividends. If a fundamental change
(as defined in the indenture) occurs, we will be required to offer to repurchase the notes at 100%
of their principal amount, plus accrued interest. The notes will mature on November 15, 2014. We
will redeem on May 11, 2014 and at the end of 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 purchaser of these notes is
an entity affiliated with Dr. Phillip Frost, who, prior to the
consummation of the sale, may have been deemed to beneficially own approximately 8.1% of
our common stock.
On a quarterly basis, we evaluate our investments to determine whether an impairment has
occurred. If so, we also make a determination if such impairment is considered temporary or
other-than-temporary. We believe that the assessment of temporary or other-than-temporary
impairment is facts and circumstances driven. However, among the matters that are considered in
making such a determination are the period of time the investment has remained below its cost or
carrying value, the likelihood of recovery given the reason for the decrease in market value and
our original expected holding period of the investment.
-56-
We or our subsidiaries file U.S. federal income tax returns and returns with various state and
local jurisdictions. Our condensed 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 March 31, 2009,
our deferred income tax liabilities exceeded our deferred income tax assets by $8,052. Our current
deferred income tax liabilities decreased by approximately $75,500 during the three months ended
March 31, 2009 as a result of expected tax payment of approximately $75,500 in connection with the
Philip Morris brands transaction due in 2009. This tax payment resulted from our settlement with
the Internal Revenue Service in July 2006, which required us to recognize taxable income of
approximately $192,000 from the Philip Morris brand transaction by March 1, 2009.
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. Our market risk
management procedures cover all market risk sensitive financial instruments.
As of March 31, 2009, approximately $35,990 of our outstanding debt at face value had variable
interest rates determined by various interest rate indices, 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 March 31, 2009,
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 $360.
In addition, as of March 31, 2009, approximately $100,987 ($221,864 principal amount) of
outstanding debt had a variable interest rate determined by the amount of the dividends on our
common stock. The difference between the stated value of the debt and its carrying value is due
principally to certain embedded derivatives, which were separately valued and recorded upon
issuance.
We have estimated the fair market value of the embedded derivatives based principally on the
results of a valuation model. The estimated fair value of the derivatives embedded within the
convertible debt is based principally on the present value of future dividend payments expected to
be received by the convertible debt holders over the term of the debt. The discount rate applied
to the future cash flows is estimated based on a spread in yield of our debt when compared to
risk-free securities with the same duration; thus, a readily determinable fair market value of the
embedded derivatives is not available. The valuation model assumes our future dividend payments and
utilizes interest rates and credit spreads for secured to unsecured debt, unsecured to subordinated
debt and subordinated debt to preferred stock to determine the fair value of the derivatives
embedded within the convertible debt. The valuation also considers items, including current and
future dividends and the volatility of Vectors stock price. The range of estimated fair market
values of our embedded derivatives was between $76,266 and $78,879. We recorded the fair market
value of our embedded derivatives at the midpoint of the inputs at $77,548 as of March 31, 2009.
The estimated fair market value of our embedded derivatives could change significantly based on
future market conditions.
-57-
Changes to the estimated fair value of these embedded derivatives are reflected quarterly
within our statements of operations as Changes in fair value of derivatives embedded within
convertible debt. The value of the embedded derivative is contingent on changes in interest rates
of debt instruments maturing over the duration of the convertible debt as well as projections of
future cash and stock dividends over the term of the debt and changes in the closing stock price at
the end of each quarterly period. Based on a hypothetical 100 basis point increase or
decrease in interest rates (1%), our annual Changes in fair value of derivatives embedded
within convertible debt could increase or decrease by approximately $2,526 with approximately $266
resulting from the embedded derivative associated with our 5% variable interest senior convertible
notes due 2011 and the remaining $2,260 resulting from the embedded derivative associated with our
3.875% variable interest senior convertible debentures due 2026. An increase in our quarterly
dividend rate by $0.10 per share would increase interest expense by approximately $6,150 per year.
We held investment securities available for sale totaling $24,496 at March 31, 2009, which
includes 13,888,889 shares of Ladenburg Thalmann Financial Services Inc. carried at $7,361,
5,057,110 shares of Opko Health, Inc. carried at $4,956, and 2,259,796 shares of Cardo Medical,
Inc. carried at $3,389 as of March 31, 2009.
In October 2008, we purchased 320,000 shares of Castle Brands, Inc. (Castle Brands) Series A
Convertible Preferred Stock for $4,000. Castle Brands is a publicly traded developer and importer
of premium branded spirits. The purchase was accounted for at historical cost and included with
Other Assets on the condensed balance sheet until the Series A Preferred Stock were converted in
January 2009 into 11,428,576 shares of Common Stock and accounted for as an investment held for
sale. The Castle Brands shares were carried at $2,286 as of March 31, 2009.
See Note 3 to our condensed consolidated financial statements. Adverse market conditions
could have a significant effect on the value of these investments.
New Valley also holds long-term investments in various investment partnerships. These
investments are illiquid, and their ultimate realization is subject to the performance of the
underlying entities.
New Accounting Pronouncements
In February 2007, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) issued SFAS No. 159, The
Fair Value Option for Financial Assets and Financial Liabilities. SFAS No. 159 permits entities to
choose to measure many financial instruments and certain other items at fair value that are not
currently required to be measured at fair value. SFAS No. 159 is effective for fiscal years
beginning after November 15, 2007, with early adoption permitted provided the entity also elects to
apply the provisions of SFAS No. 157. We have not elected to use the fair value option.
In December 2007, the FASB issued SFAS No. 141(R), a revised version of SFAS No. 141,
Business Combinations. FSP No. 141(R)-1, Accounting
for Assets Acquired and Liabilities Assumed in a Business Combination
that Arise from Contingencies was issued in April 2009. The
revisions are intended to simplify existing guidance and converge
rulemaking under U.S. Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) with international
accounting rules. This statement applies prospectively to business combinations where the
acquisition date is on or after the beginning of the first annual reporting period beginning on or
after December 15, 2008. An entity may not apply it before that date. The new standard also
converges financial reporting under U.S. GAAP with international
accounting rules. SFAS No. 141(R) and 141(R)-1 did not have an
impact on our condensed consolidated financial
statements.
In March 2008, the FASB issued SFAS No. 161, Disclosures about Derivative Instruments and
Hedging Activities-an amendment of FASB Statement No. 133. SFAS No. 161 seeks qualitative
disclosures about the objectives and strategies for using derivatives, quantitative data about the
fair value of and gains and losses on derivative contracts, and details of credit-risk-related
contingent features in hedged positions. SFAS No. 161 also seeks enhanced disclosure around
derivative instruments in financial statements, accounting under SFAS No. 133, Accounting for
Derivative Instruments and Hedging Activities, and how hedges affect an entitys financial
position, financial performance and cash flows. SFAS No. 161 is effective for us as of
January 1, 2009 and did not have a material impact on
our condensed consolidated results of operations, financial position or cash flows.
-58-
On May 9, 2008, the FASB issued FASB Staff Position No. APB 14-1, Accounting for Convertible
Debt Instruments That May Be Settled in Cash upon Conversion (Including Partial Cash Settlement)
(FSP No. APB 14-1). FSP No. APB 14-1 did not
have an impact on our condensed consolidated financial statements.
On June 16, 2008, the FASB issued FASB Staff Position No. EITF 03-6-1, Determining Whether
Instruments Granted in Share-Based Payment Transactions are Participating Securities, which states
that unvested share-based payment awards that contain nonforfeitable rights to dividends or
dividend equivalents (whether paid or unpaid) are participating securities and shall be included in
the computation of earnings per share under the two-class method. The guidance is effective for
financial statements issued for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2008, and interim periods
within those years. FSP No. EITF 03-6-1 did not have an impact on our condensed
consolidated financial statements.
In October 2008, the FASB issued FSP SFAS 157-3, Determining the Fair Value of a Financial
Asset When the Market for That Asset Is Not Active, which addresses the application of SFAS 157
for illiquid financial instruments. FSP SFAS 157-3 clarifies that approaches to determining fair
value other than the market approach may be appropriate when the market for a financial asset is
not active.
In April 2009, the FASB issued FSP SFAS 157-4, Determining Fair Value When the Volume and
Level of Activity for the Asset or Liability Have Significantly Decreased and Identifying
Transactions that are not Orderly. FSP FAS No. 157-4 clarifies the methodology used to determine
fair value when there is no active market or where the price inputs being used represent distressed
sales. FSP FAS No. 157-4 also reaffirms the objective of fair value measurement, as stated in FAS
No. 157, Fair Value Measurements, which is to reflect how much an asset would be sold for in an
orderly transaction. It also reaffirms the need to use judgment to determine if a formerly active
market has become inactive, as well as to determine fair values when markets have become inactive.
The guidance is effective for financial statement purposes for interim and annual financial
statements issued for fiscal periods ending after June 15, 2009. We will adopt the provisions of
FSP FAS No. 157-4 effective April 1, 2009, which we do not expect to have a material impact on our
condensed consolidated financial statements.
In April 2009, FASB issued FSP FAS No. 115-2 and FAS 124-2, Recognition and Presentation of
Other-Than-Temporary Impairments (FSP No. 115-2 and FAS No. 124-2). FSP FAS No. 115-2 and FAS
No. 124-2 modifies the other-than-temporary impairment guidance for debt securities through
increased consistency in the timing of impairment recognition and enhanced disclosures related to
the credit and noncredit components of impaired debt securities that are not expected to be sold.
In addition, increased disclosures are required for both debt and equity securities regarding
expected cash flows, credit losses, and an aging of securities with unrealized losses. FSP FAS No.
115-2 and FAS No. 124-2 will be effective for interim and annual reporting periods that end after
June 15, 2009. We will adopt the provisions of FSP FAS No. 115-2 and FAS No. 124-2 effective April
1, 2009, which we do not expect to have a material impact on our condensed consolidated financial
statements.
In April 2009, FASB issued FSP FAS No. 107-1 and APB Opinion No. 28-1, Interim Disclosures
about Fair Value of Financial Instruments (FSP FAS No. 107-1 and APB Opinion No. 28-1). FSP FAS
No. 107-1 and APB Opinion No. 28-1 requires fair value disclosures for financial instruments that
are not reflected in the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets at fair value. Prior to the issuance
of FSP FAS No. 107-1 and APB Opinion No. 28-1, the fair values of those assets and liabilities were
disclosed only once each year. With the issuance of FSP FAS No. 107-1 and APB Opinion No. 28-1, we
will now be required to disclose this information on a quarterly basis, providing quantitative and
qualitative information about fair value estimates for all
financial instruments not measured in the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets at fair value.
FSP FAS No. 107-1 and APB Opinion No. 28-1 will be effective for interim reporting periods that end
after June 15, 2009. We will adopt the disclosure requirements in our June 30, 2009 condensed
consolidated financial statements.
-59-
In December 2008, the FASB issued FSP SFAS 132(R)-1 Employers Disclosures about
Postretirement Benefit Plan Assets. This FSP amends the disclosure requirements for employers
disclosure of plan assets for defined benefit pensions and other postretirement plans. The
objective of this FSP is to provide users of financial statements with an understanding of how
investment allocation decisions are made, the major categories of plan assets held by the plans,
the inputs and valuation techniques used to measure the fair value of plan assets, significant
concentration of risk within the companys plan assets, and for fair value measurements determined
using significant unobservable inputs a reconciliation of changes between the beginning and ending
balances. FSP SFAS 132(R)-1 is effective for fiscal years ending after December 15, 2009. We will
adopt the new disclosure requirements in our 2009 annual reporting period.
Legislation and Regulation
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 (FCLA 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 (FTC) on the effectiveness of cigarette 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. It is possible that proposed legislation providing for regulation of cigarettes by the
Food and Drug Administration (FDA), if enacted, could significantly change the warning
requirements currently mandated by the FCLA Act. In addition, since 1997, Liggett has included the
warning Smoking is Addictive on its cigarette packages and point-of-sale materials.
-60-
In August 1996, the FDA published 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 rule. In March 2000, the United
States Supreme Court ruled that the FDA did 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, on several occasions over the years, introduced
legislation that would give the FDA authority to regulate the manufacture, sale, distribution and
labeling of tobacco products, thereby allowing the FDA to reinstate its prior regulations or adopt
new or additional regulations. Most recently, in April 2009, the House passed legislation
granting the FDA authority to regulate tobacco products. A substantially similar bill was
introduced in the Senate in May 2009. The House legislation includes a provision granting certain
small manufacturers additional time to comply with certain of the requirements relating to
manufacturing practices and product testing. Under the bills current language, this additional
time would not apply to Liggett. While we do not know whether FDA regulation over tobacco products
will be approved by this Congress and signed into law, enactment of such legislation is a
possibility. FDA regulation of tobacco products could have a material adverse effect on us.
Liggett and Vector Tobacco provide ingredient information annually, as required by law, to the
states of Massachusetts, Texas and Minnesota. Several other states are considering ingredient
disclosure legislation, and the proposed legislation under consideration by Congress providing for
FDA regulation of tobacco products also calls for, among other things, ingredient disclosure.
In October 2004, the Fair and Equitable Tobacco Reform Act of 2004 (FETRA) was signed into
law. FETRA provides for the elimination of the federal tobacco quota and price support program
through an industry funded buyout of tobacco growers and quota holders. Pursuant to the
legislation, manufacturers of tobacco products have been assessed $10,140,000 over a ten year
period, commencing in 2005, to compensate tobacco growers and quota holders for the elimination of
their quota rights. Cigarette manufacturers are currently responsible for 95% of the assessment
(subject to adjustment in the future), which is allocated based on relative unit volume of domestic
cigarette shipments. Management currently estimates that Liggetts and Vector Tobaccos assessment
will be approximately $23,200 for 2009. The relative 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 are no longer obligated to make certain contractual payments, commonly known as Phase
II payments, that 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.
Cigarettes are subject to substantial and increasing federal, state and local excise taxes.
Effective April 1, 2009, the federal cigarette excise tax increased from $0.39 to $1.01 per pack.
State excise taxes vary considerably and, when combined with sales taxes, local taxes and the
federal excise tax, may exceed $4.00 per pack. In 2009, three states enacted increases in excise
taxes and several other states are considering, or have pending, legislation proposing further
state excise tax increases. Management believes increases in excise and similar taxes have had,
and will continue to have, an adverse effect on sales of cigarettes.
Over the last several years a majority of states have enacted virtually identical legislation
requiring cigarettes to meet a laboratory test standard for reduced ignition propensity.
Cigarettes that meet this standard are referred to as fire standards compliant or FSC, and are
sometimes commonly called self-extinguishing. Effective January 1, 2009, substantially all of the
cigarettes that Liggett and Vector Tobacco manufacture are fire standards compliant. Compliance
with such legislation could be burdensome and costly and could harm the business of Liggett and
Vector Tobacco, particularly if there were to be varying standards from state to state.
-61-
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 risk, 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 FTC or the
United States Department of Agriculture may be established. The FTC has expressed interest in the
regulation of tobacco products 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 effect on
us.
In November 2008, the Federal Trade Commission rescinded guidance it issued in 1966 that
generally permitted statements concerning cigarette tar and nicotine yields if they were based on
the Cambridge Filter Method, sometimes called the FTC method. In its rescission notice, the FTC
also indicated that advertisers should no longer use terms suggesting the FTCs endorsement or
approval of any specific test method, including terms such as per FTC Method or other phrases
that state or imply FTC endorsement or approval of the Cambridge Filter Method or other
machine-based methods for measuring cigarette tar or nicotine yields. Also in its rescission
notice, the FTC indicated that cigarette descriptors such as light and ultra light have not
been defined by the FTC, nor has the FTC provided any guidance or authorization for their use. The
FTC indicated that to the extent descriptors are used in a manner that convey an overall impression
that is false, misleading, or unsubstantiated, such use could be actionable. The FTC further
indicated that companies must ensure that any continued use of descriptors does not convey an
erroneous or unsubstantiated message that a particular cigarette presents a reduced risk of harm or
is otherwise likely to mislead consumers. The impact of the rescission of the FTC guidance is
currently being evaluated by us, but in response to the FTCs action, we have removed all reference
to tar and nicotine testing from our point-of-sale advertising. To the extent descriptors are no
longer used to market or promote our cigarettes, this may have a material adverse effect on us.
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 to, among other things, eliminate smoking in
public places, 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 effect on us.
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.
-62-
SPECIAL NOTE REGARDING FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS
In addition to historical information, this report contains forward-looking statements
within the meaning of the federal securities law. Forward-looking statements include information
relating to our intent, belief or current expectations, primarily with respect to, but not limited
to:
|
|
|
economic outlook, |
|
|
|
|
capital expenditures, |
|
|
|
|
cost reduction, |
|
|
|
|
new legislation, |
|
|
|
|
cash flows, |
|
|
|
|
operating performance, |
|
|
|
|
litigation, |
|
|
|
|
impairment charges and cost savings associated with restructurings of our tobacco
operations, and |
|
|
|
|
related industry developments (including trends affecting our business, financial
condition and results of operations). |
We identify forward-looking statements in this report by using words or phrases such as
anticipate, believe, estimate, expect, intend, may be, objective, plan, seek,
predict, project and will be and similar words or phrases or their negatives.
The forward-looking information involves important risks and uncertainties that could cause
our actual results, performance or achievements to differ materially from our anticipated results,
performance or achievements expressed or implied by the forward-looking statements. Factors that
could cause actual results to differ materially from those suggested by the forward-looking
statements include, without limitation, the following:
|
|
|
general economic and market conditions and any changes therein, due to acts of war
and terrorism or otherwise, |
|
|
|
|
impact of current crises in capital and credit markets, including any continued
worsening , |
|
|
|
|
governmental regulations and policies, |
|
|
|
|
effects of industry competition, |
|
|
|
|
impact of business combinations, including acquisitions and divestitures, both
internally for us and externally in the tobacco industry, |
|
|
|
|
impact of restructurings on our tobacco business and our ability to achieve any
increases in profitability estimated to occur as a result of these restructurings, |
|
|
|
|
impact of new legislation on our competitors payment obligations, results of
operations and product costs, i.e. the impact of recent federal legislation
eliminating the federal tobacco quota system, |
|
|
|
|
impact of substantial increases in federal, state and local excise taxes, |
|
|
|
|
uncertainty related to litigation and potential additional payment obligations for
us under the Master Settlement Agreement and other settlement agreements with the
states, and |
|
|
|
|
risks inherent in our new product development initiatives. |
Further information on risks and uncertainties specific to our business include the risk
factors discussed above in Managements Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results
of Operations and under Item 1A, Risk Factors in our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the
year ended December 31, 2008 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.
Although we believe the expectations reflected in these forward-looking statements are based
on reasonable assumptions, there is a risk that these expectations will not be attained and that
any deviations will be material. The forward-looking statements speak only as of the date they are
made.
-63-
ITEM 3. 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 4. 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.
There were no 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.
-64-
PART II
OTHER INFORMATION
Item 1. Legal Proceedings
Reference is made to Note 8, incorporated herein by reference, to our condensed
consolidated financial statements included elsewhere in this report which contains a
general description of certain legal proceedings to which our company, VGR Holding,
Liggett, Vector Tobacco, New Valley or their subsidiaries are a party and certain
related matters. Reference is also made to Exhibit 99.1 for additional information
regarding the pending smoking-related material legal proceedings to which Liggett or us
is a 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 St., Miami, Florida
33131, Attn. Investor Relations.
Item 1A. Risk Factors
Except as set forth below, there are no material changes from the risk factors set forth
in Item 1A, Risk Factors, of our Annual Report on 10-K for the year ended December 31,
2008. Please refer to that section for disclosures regarding the risks and
uncertainties related to our business. The risk factors in the Annual Report on Form
10-K entitled Litigation will continue to harm the tobacco industry, Individual
tobacco-related cases have increased as a result of the Florida Supreme Courts ruling
in Engle and Liggett may have additional payment obligations under the Master
Settlement Agreement and its other settlement agreements with the states are revised to
reflect the updated information concerning the number and status of cases and other
matters discussed under Note 8 to our condensed consolidated financial statements and in
Managements Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition Recent Developments
Tobacco Settlement Agreements, Recent Developments in Legislation, Regulation and
Tobacco-Related Litigation, and Legislation and Regulation.
Item 2. Unregistered Sales of Equity Securities and Use of Proceeds
No securities of ours which were not registered under the Securities Act of 1933 have
been issued or sold by us during the three months ended March 31, 2009.
No securities of ours were repurchased by us or our affiliated purchasers during the
three months ended March 31, 2009.
-65-
Item 6. Exhibits
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. |
|
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 |
-66-
SIGNATURE
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/ J. Bryant Kirkland III
|
|
|
|
J. Bryant Kirkland III |
|
|
|
Vice President, Treasurer and Chief
Financial Officer |
|
|
Date: May 11, 2009
-67-
EX-31.1
EXHIBIT 31.1
RULE 13a-14(a) CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
I, Howard M. Lorber, certify that:
1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q 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: May 11, 2009
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/s/ Howard M. Lorber
|
|
|
Howard M. Lorber |
|
|
President and Chief Executive Officer |
|
EX-31.2
EXHIBIT 31.2
RULE 13a-14(a) CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
I, J. Bryant Kirkland III, certify that:
1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q 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: May 11, 2009
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/s/ J. Bryant Kirkland III
|
|
|
J. Bryant Kirkland III |
|
|
Vice President, Treasurer and Chief Financial
Officer |
|
EX-32.1
EXHIBIT 32.1
SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
In connection with the Quarterly Report of Vector Group Ltd. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for
the quarter ended March 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the Report), I, Howard M. Lorber, 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. |
May 11, 2009
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/s/ Howard M. Lorber
|
|
|
Howard M. Lorber |
|
|
President and Chief Executive Officer |
|
EX-32.2
EXHIBIT 32.2
SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
In connection with the Quarterly Report of Vector Group Ltd. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for
the quarter ended March 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the Report), I, J. Bryant Kirkland III, 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. |
May 11, 2009
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/s/ J. Bryant Kirkland III
|
|
|
J. Bryant Kirkland III |
|
|
Vice President, Treasurer and Chief Financial
Officer |
|
|
EX-99.1
Exhibit 99.1
I. INDIVIDUAL SMOKER CASES
District of Columbia
Sims, et al. v. Philip Morris, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:01-CV-01107-GK, USDC,
District of Columbia (case filed 5/23/01). Three individuals suing. In February 2003, the
court denied plaintiffs motion for class certification. Plaintiffs subsequently filed
motions seeking reconsideration and reversal of the order denying class certification, which
motions were denied by the court in December 2006. No appeals were taken. This case is
dormant.
Florida
a) Engle Progeny Cases.
Pursuant to the Florida Supreme Courts July 2006 ruling in Engle v. Liggett Group Inc.,
which decertified the Engle class on a prospective basis, former class members had one year
from January 11, 2007 to file individual lawsuits. In addition, some individuals who filed
suit prior to January 11, 2007, and who claim they meet the conditions in Engle, are
attempting to avail themselves of the Engle ruling. Lawsuits by individuals requesting the
benefit of the Engle ruling, whether filed before or after the January 11, 2007 mandate, are
referred to as the Engle progeny cases. Certain of these cases were previously listed in
this Exhibit 99.1, but are now generally referred to in this paragraph. As of March 31,
2009, Liggett and/or the Company were named in approximately 3,200 Engle progeny cases in
both state and federal courts in Florida. These cases include approximately 8,750
plaintiffs, approximately 3,200 of whom have claims pending in federal court. Duplicate
cases were filed in federal and state court on behalf of approximately 660 of these
plaintiffs. The majority of the cases pending in federal court are stayed pending the
outcome of an appeal to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals of several district court
orders in which it was found that the Florida Supreme Courts decision in Engle was
unconstitutional. The total number of cases will likely increase as the court may require
multi-plaintiff cases to be severed into individual cases. The total number of plaintiffs
may increase as a result of attempts by existing plaintiffs to add additional parties. For
more information on the Engle case, see Note 8. Contingencies. At present, trials have been
scheduled or are likely to be scheduled for approximately 45 alleged Engle progeny cases
during 2009 and 2010. These cases, and certain other alleged Engle progeny cases, are
described below:
Abbott v. Philip Morris, et al., Case No. 07-36885, Circuit Court of the
17th Judicial Circuit, Florida, Broward County (case filed 12/31/07). One
individual suing on behalf of the estate of a deceased smoker. The case is presently
scheduled for the trial period of 03/29/10-06/25/10.
Alexander v. R.J. Reynolds, et al., Case No. 01-2008-CA-5067, Circuit Court of the
8th Judicial Circuit, Florida, Alachua County (case filed 01/10/08). One
individual suing on behalf of the estate of a deceased smoker. The case is presently
scheduled for the 2 week trial period starting 05/03/10.
Barbanell v. R.J. Reynolds, et al., Case No. 07-367-37, Circuit Court of the
17th Judicial Circuit, Florida, Broward County (case filed 12/28/07). One
individual suing on behalf of the estate of a deceased smoker. The case is presently
scheduled for the trial period of 04/27/09-06/26/09.
Bronstein, et al., v. R. J. Reynolds et al., Case No. 08-026341, Circuit Court of
the 17th Judicial Circuit, Florida, Broward County (case filed 06/09/08). Two
individuals suing. The case is presently scheduled for the trial period of
03/19/10-06/25/10.
Budnick v. R.J. Reynolds, et al., Case No. 07-36734, Circuit Court of the
17th Judicial Circuit, Florida, Broward County (case filed 12/28/07). One
individual suing on behalf of the estate of a deceased smoker. The case is presently
scheduled for the trial period of 09/29/09 12/18/09.
Buonomo v. R. J. Reynolds et al., Case No. 08-19612, Circuit Court of the
17th Judicial Circuit, Florida, Broward County (case filed 05/02/08). One
individual suing on behalf of the estate of a deceased smoker. The case is presently
scheduled for the trial period of 06/29/09 08/31/09.
Calloway v. R. J. Reynolds et al., Case No. 08-21770, Circuit Court of the
17th Judicial Circuit, Florida, Broward County (case filed 05/15/08). One
individual suing on behalf of the estate of a deceased smoker. The case is presently
scheduled for the trial period of 12/18/09 03/26/10.
Campbell v. R. J. Reynolds, et al., Case No. 2008-2147, Circuit Court of the
1st Judicial Circuit, Florida, Escambia County (case filed 07/08/08). One
individual suing on behalf of the estate. The case is presently scheduled for the trial
period of 07/13/09 08/22/09.
Cohen, et al., v. R.J. Reynolds, et al., Case No. 07-33326, Circuit Court of the
17th Judicial Circuit, Florida, Broward County (case filed 12/04/07). Two
individuals suing. The case is presently scheduled for the trial period of 09/29/09 -
12/18/09.
Dawson, et al., v. R.J. Reynolds, et al., Case No. 07-35005, Circuit Court of the
17th Judicial Circuit, Florida, Broward County (case filed 12/14/07). Two
individuals suing. The case is presently scheduled for the trial period of 09/29/09
- -12/18/09.
Evers v. R. J. Reynolds et al., Case No. 08 9154, Circuit Court of the
13th Judicial Circuit, Florida, Hillsborough County (case filed 11/02/07). One
individual suing on behalf of the estate of a deceased smoker. The case is presently
scheduled for the trial period begins 10/12/09.
Ferlanti v. Liggett Group LLC, Case No. 03-21697, Circuit Court of the
17th Judicial Circuit, Florida, Broward County (case filed 12/11/03). One
individual suing as Personal Representative of the estate and survivors of a deceased
smoker. Liggett is the sole defendant in this action. Plaintiff amended her original
action to assert her status as a decertified Engle class member. Trial commenced on
February 19, 2009. The jury found that plaintiff was not a member of the Engle class. On
March 6, 2009, the jury returned a verdict for plaintiff in the amount of $1,200,000 and
found plaintiff 40% at fault. The final judgment was entered on March 30, 2009. Liggett has
appealed the verdict. No punitive damages were awarded. On May 1, 2009, the court granted
plaintiffs motion for an award of attorneys fees, but, has not set a hearing to determine
the amount of the award.
Greene v. R.J. Reynolds, et al., Case No. 08-22567, Circuit Court of the
17th Judicial Circuit, Florida, Broward County (case filed 05/20/08). One
individual suing on behalf of the estate of a deceased smoker. The case is presently
scheduled for the trial period of 06/29/09 -09/25/09.
Gregg v. R.J. Reynolds, et al., Case No. 08-000-730, Circuit Court of the
13th Judicial Circuit, Florida, Hillsborough County (case filed 01/09/08). One
individual suing on behalf of the estate of a deceased smoker. The case is presently
scheduled for the trial period starting 08/09.
Grossman, et al., v. R.J. Reynolds, et al., Case No. 08-25828, Circuit Court of the
17th Judicial Circuit, Florida, Broward County (case filed 06/05/08). Two
individuals suing. The case is presently scheduled for the trial period of 06/29/09 -
09/25/09.
2
Hall v. R.J. Reynolds, et al., Case No. 01-2008-CA-3979, Circuit Court of the
8th Judicial Circuit, Florida, Alachua County (case filed 07/25/08). One
individual suing on behalf of the estate of a deceased smoker. The case is presently
scheduled for the 2 week trial period starting 04/05/10.
Harris, et al., v. R.J. Reynolds, et al., Case No. 07-35926, Circuit Court of the
17th Judicial Circuit, Florida, Broward County (case filed 12/21/07). Two
individuals suing. The case is presently scheduled for the trial period of 01/04/10
- -03/26/10.
Hatziyannakas v. R.J. Reynolds, et al., Case No. 07-36751, Circuit Court of the
17th Judicial Circuit, Florida, Broward County (case filed 12/28/07). One
individual suing on behalf of the estate of a deceased smoker. The case is presently
scheduled for the trial period of 01/04/10 -03/26/10.
Higgins v. R. J. Reynolds et al., Case No. 08-007441, Circuit Court of the
13th Judicial Circuit, Florida, Hillsborough County (case filed 04/03/08). One
individual suing on behalf of the estate of a deceased smoker. The case is presently
scheduled for the trial period beginning 03/09.
Jenkins v. Philip Morris et al., Case No. 07-15069, Circuit Court of the
13th Judicial Circuit, Florida, Hillsborough County (case filed 11/02/07). One
individual suing on behalf of the estate of a deceased smoker. The case is presently
scheduled for the trial period beginning 05/09.
Kaplan v. R.J. Reynolds, et al., Case No. 08-26341, Circuit Court of the
17th Judicial Circuit, Florida, Broward County (case filed 05/01/08). One
individual suing. The case is presently scheduled for the trial period 04/27/09-06/26/09.
Kirkland v. R.J. Reynolds, et al., Case No. 08-673, Circuit Court of the
13th Judicial Circuit, Florida, Hillsborough County (case filed 01/09/08). One
individual suing. The case is presently scheduled for the trial period starting 07/09.
Lapidus-Carlson v. R.J. Reynolds, et al., Case No. 07-34496, Circuit Court of the
17th Judicial Circuit, Florida, Broward County (case filed 12/12/07). One
individual suing on behalf of the estate of a deceased smoker. The case is presently
scheduled for the trial period of 04/27/09 06/26/09.
Lukacs v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, et al., Case No. 01-38-22 CA23, Circuit
Court of the 11th Judicial Circuit, Florida, Miami-Dade County (case filed
12/15/01). One individual suing as Personal Representative of the estate and survivors of a
deceased smoker, as a decertified Engle class member. In June 2002, the jury awarded
$37,500,000 in compensatory damages, jointly and severally, which was subsequently reduced
by the court. The jury found Liggett 50% responsible. In August 2008, the court entered
judgment in the amount of $24,835,000, plus interest from June 2002. In October 2008,
plaintiff withdrew her request for punitive damages. In November 2008 the court entered
final judgment. In December 2008 the defendants appealed the decision to the Third District
Court of Appeal. Briefing is underway. For more information on the Lukacs case, see Note
8. Contingencies.
McKinney v. R.J. Reynolds, et al., Case No. 01-2008-CA-0152, Circuit Court of the
8th Judicial Circuit, Florida, Alachua County (case filed 01/08/08). One
individual suing on behalf of the
estate of a deceased smoker. The case is presently scheduled for the 2 week trial period
starting 06/07/10.
3
Mobley, et al., v. R.J. Reynolds, et al., Case No. 08-687, Circuit Court of the
13th Judicial Circuit, Florida, Hillsborough County (case filed 01/09/08). Two
individuals suing. The case is presently scheduled for the three week trial period starting
07/09.
Morrissette-Stege v. R.J. Reynolds, et al., Case No. 07-34194, Circuit Court of the
17th Judicial Circuit, Florida, Broward County (case filed 12/10/07). One
individual suing on behalf of the estate of a deceased smoker. The case is presently
scheduled for the trial period of 03/29/10 06/25/10.
Naugle v. R.J. Reynolds, et al., Case No. 07-036736, Circuit Court of the
17th Judicial Circuit, Florida, Broward County (case filed 12/28/07). One
individual suing. The case is presently scheduled for the trial period of 09/29/09 -
12/18/09.
Palmieri, et al., v. R.J. Reynolds, et al., Case No. 07-26287, Circuit Court of the
17th Judicial Circuit, Florida, Broward County (case filed 10/10/07). Two
individuals suing. The case is presently scheduled for the trial period of
09/29/09-12/18/09.
Pappas v. R.J. Reynolds, et al., Case No. 07-22785, Circuit Court of the
17th Judicial Circuit, Florida, Broward County (case filed 09/10/07). One
individual suing. The case is presently scheduled for the trial period of 01/04/10-03/26/10.
Patterson v. R.J. Reynolds, et al., Case No. 08-CA-6853, Circuit Court of the
13th Judicial Circuit, Florida, Hillsborough County (case filed 03/28/08). One
individual suing. The case is presently scheduled for the trial period from 09/29/09 -
12/18/09.
Putney v. R.J. Reynolds, et al., Case No. 07-36668, Circuit Court of the
17th Judicial Circuit, Florida, Broward County (case filed 12/28/07). One
individual suing on behalf of the estate of a deceased smoker. The case is presently
scheduled for the trial period of 03/29/10 06/25/10.
Rearick v. R. J. Reynolds et al., Case No. 08-CA-66-K, Circuit Court of the
16th Judicial Circuit, Florida, Monroe County (case filed 01/10/08). One
individual suing on behalf of the estate of a deceased smoker. The case is presently
scheduled for the trial period starting 09/10/09.
Riskus v. R.J. Reynolds, et al., Case No. 08-11214, Circuit Court of the
13th Judicial Circuit, Florida, Hillsborough County (case filed 05/21/08). One
individual suing on behalf of the estate of a deceased smoker. The case is presently
scheduled for the trial period of 09/14/09 10/02/09.
Rodriquez v. R.J. Reynolds, et al., Case No. 08-9153, Circuit Court of the
13th Judicial Circuit, Florida, Hillsborough County (case filed 04/25/08). One
individual suing on behalf of the estate of a deceased smoker. The case is presently
scheduled for the trial period starting 11/02/09.
Rohr v. R.J. Reynolds, et al., Case No. 07-34472, Circuit Court of the
17th Judicial Circuit, Florida, Broward County (case filed 12/12/07). One
individual suing on behalf of the estate of a deceased smoker. The case is presently
scheduled for the trial period of 03/29/10 06/25/10.
Root v. R. J. Reynolds et al., Case No. 08-706, Circuit Court of the 13th
Judicial Circuit, Florida, Hillsborough County (case filed 01/09/08). One individual suing
on behalf of the estate of a deceased smoker. The case is presently scheduled for the trial
period starting 03/09.
4
Salvino v. R. J. Reynolds et al., Case No. 07-25702, Circuit Court of the
17th Judicial Circuit, Florida, Broward County (case filed 10/05/07). One
individual suing on behalf of the estate of a deceased smoker. The case is presently
scheduled for the trial period of 04/27/09-06/26/09.
Singerman v. R.J. Reynolds et al., Case No. 08-22573, Circuit Court of the
17th Judicial Circuit, Florida, Broward County (case filed 05/20/08). One
individual suing on behalf of the estate of a deceased smoker. The case is presently
scheduled for the trial period of 01/04/10 03/26/10.
Snow v. Philip Morris et al., Case No. 08-7474, Circuit Court of the 13th
Judicial Circuit, Florida, Hillsborough County (case filed 04/04/08). One individual suing
on behalf of the estate of a deceased smoker. The case is presently scheduled for the trial
period starting 02/09.
Southerden v. R.J. Reynolds, et al., Case No. 01-2008-CA-3116, Circuit Court of the
8th Judicial Circuit, Florida, Alachua County (case filed 06/09/08). One
individual suing on behalf of the estate of a deceased smoker. The case is presently
scheduled for the 2 week trial period starting 01/04/10.
Talenfeld v. R.J. Reynolds, et al., Case No. 08-22565, Circuit Court of the
17th Judicial Circuit, Florida, Broward County (case filed 05/20/08). One
individual suing on behalf of the estate of a deceased smoker. The case is presently
scheduled for the trial period of 06/29/09 08/31/09.
Thalji v. R.J. Reynolds, et al., Case No. 07-14595-D, Circuit Court of the
13th Judicial Circuit, Florida, Hillsborough County (case filed 11/01/07). One
individual suing on behalf of the estate of a deceased smoker. The case is presently
scheduled for the trial period starting 06/09.
Townsend v. R.J. Reynolds, et al., Case No. 01-2008-CA-3978, Circuit Court of the
8th Judicial Circuit, Florida, Alachua County (case filed 07/25/08). One
individual suing on behalf of the estate of a deceased smoker. The case is presently
scheduled for the 2 week trial period starting 02/01/10.
Tucci v. R.J. Reynolds, et al., Case No. 08-19619, Circuit Court of the
17th Judicial Circuit, Florida, Broward County (case filed 05/02/08). One
individual suing on behalf of the estate of a deceased smoker. The case is presently
scheduled for the trial period of 06/29/09 -09/25/09.
Weick v. Philip Morris, et al., Case No. 08-6827, Circuit Court of the
13th Judicial Circuit, Florida, Hillsborough County (case filed 03/28/08). One
individual suing on behalf of the estate of a deceased smoker. The case is presently
scheduled for the trial period starting 04/09.
Willis v. R.J. Reynolds et al., Case No. 08-CA-006859, Circuit Court of the
12th Judicial Circuit, Florida, Manatee County (case filed 10/09/08). One
individual suing. The case is presently scheduled for the trial period of 10/5/09 -
10/23/09.
b) Other Individual Cases.
Bryant v. Philip Morris Incorporated, et al., Case No. 50-2008-CA-25429 (AJ),
Circuit Court of the 15th Judicial Circuit, Florida, Palm Beach County (case
filed 8/25/08). One individual suing as personal representative of the estate and survivors
of a deceased smoker.
Caldwell v. Philip Morris Inc., Case No. 08-000391 (AA), Circuit Court of the
15th Judicial Circuit, Florida, Palm Beach County (case filed 1/7/08). One
individual suing on behalf of the estate and survivors of a deceased smoker.
5
Cowart v. Liggett Group Inc., Case No. 98-01483CA, Circuit Court of the
4th Judicial Circuit, Florida, Duval County (case filed 3/16/98). One individual
suing. Liggett is the only tobacco company defendant. The case is dormant.
Davis, 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). Liggett is
the only defendant in this action. In April 2004, a jury awarded compensatory damages of
$540,000 against Liggett, plus interest, which was paid by Liggett in February 2009, after
the award was affirmed on appeal. In addition, plaintiffs counsel was awarded legal fees
of $752,000. In March 2008, the Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed and remanded the
legal fee award for further proceedings in the trial court. A hearing on the legal fees
will be set for sometime during the period 6/29/09 9/25/09.
Diamond v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., et al., Case No. 08-24533, Circuit Court of
the 17thJudicial Circuit, Florida, Broward County (case filed 5/30/08). One
individual suing.
Fine v. Philip Morris Inc., Case No. 08-000383 (AA), Circuit Court of the
15th Judicial Circuit, Florida, Palm Beach County (case filed 1/7/08). One
individual suing on behalf of the estate and survivors of a deceased smoker.
Grose v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., et al., Case No. 08-38276, Circuit Court of the
17th Judicial Circuit, Florida, Broward County (case filed 8/15/08). One
individual suing as personal representative of the estate and survivors of a deceased
smoker.
Hikin, et al. v. Philip Morris Incorporated, et al., Case No. 08-57479, Circuit
Court of the 17th Judicial Circuit, Florida, Broward County (case filed
11/21/08). Two individuals suing.
Laschke, et al. v. R.J. Reynolds, et al., Case No. 96-8131-CI-008, Circuit Court of
the 6th Judicial Circuit, Florida, Pinellas County (case filed 12/20/96). Two
individuals suing. The dismissal of the case was reversed on appeal, and the case was
remanded to the trial court. Motions to dismiss were filed by the defendants and are
pending.
Levine v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, 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. Plaintiff asserted claims for negligence and strict
liability against each defendant and a claim for punitive damages against R.J. Reynolds.
Although, plaintiffs Liggett brand history is limited, a motion for summary judgment was
denied by the court. On February 27, 2009 plaintiff passed away. The case is inactive
while a decision is made by plaintiffs estate as to whether to pursue the matter.
Meckler, et al. v. Liggett Group Inc., Case No. 97-03949-CA, Circuit Court of the
4th Judicial Circuit, Florida, Duval County (case filed 7/10/97). One individual
suing. Liggett is the only tobacco company defendant. The case is dormant.
Rawls, et al. v. Liggett Group Inc., Case No. 97-01354 CA, Circuit Court of the
4th Judicial Circuit, Florida, Duval County (case filed 3/6/97). One individual
suing. Liggett is the only tobacco company defendant. The case is dormant.
Spivak v. Philip Morris Incorporated, et al., Case No. 08-19309 (AH), Circuit Court
of the 15th Judicial Circuit, Florida, Palm Beach County (case filed 6/26/08).
One individual suing as personal representative of the estate and survivors of a deceased
smoker.
6
Spry, et al. v. Liggett Group LLC, et al., Case No. 06-31216 CICI, Circuit Court of
the 7th Judicial Circuit, Florida, Volusia County (case filed 7/27/06). Two
individuals suing. Discovery is pending.
Louisiana
Dimm, et al. v. R.J. Reynolds, et al., Case No. 53919, Circuit Court of the
18th Judicial District Court, Louisiana, Iberville Parish (case filed 7/25/00).
Seven individuals suing.
Hunter, et al. v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, et al., Case No. 2002/18748m,
Circuit Court of the Civil District Court, Louisiana, Parish of Orleans (case filed
12/4/02). Two individuals suing.
Newsom, et al. v. R.J. Reynolds, et al., Case No. 105838, Circuit Court of the
16th Judicial District Court, Louisiana, St. Mary Parish (case filed 5/17/00).
Five individuals suing.
Oser v. The American Tobacco Co., et al., Case No. 97-9293, Circuit Court of the
Civil District Court, Louisiana, Parish of Orleans (case filed 5/27/97). One individual
suing.
Reese, et al. v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, et al., Case No. 2003-12761,
Circuit Court of the 22nd Judicial District Court, Louisiana, St. Tammany Parish
(case filed 6/10/03). Five individuals suing.
Maryland
Jones, et ux. v. Liggett Group LLC, et al., Case No. 24-X-08-000036, Circuit Court
for Baltimore City, (case filed 1/18/09). Plaintiff is suing certain cigarette and asbestos
manufacturers for injuries allegedly caused by exposure to cigarette smoke and asbestos.
Defendants filed a motion to dismiss and on February 24, 2009, plaintiff filed a response.
Mueller, Jr. et ux. v. Liggett Group LLC, et al., Case No. 24-X-06-000259, Circuit
Court for Baltimore City, (case filed 10/10/08). One individual, Ada Mueller as personal
representative of and surviving spouse of Louis Mueller, is suing certain cigarette and
asbestos manufacturers for decedents injuries allegedly caused by exposure to cigarette
smoke and asbestos. On January 9, 2009, Liggett filed an Answer and adopted a motion to
dismiss filed by certain cigarette manufacturing defendants.
Slaughter, et al., v. John Crane-Houdaille, Inc., et al., Case No. 24-X-06-000394,
Circuit Court for Baltimore City, (case filed 2/10/09). Plaintiff is suing individually and
as Personal Representative of the Estate of a deceased smoker. Plaintiffs seek damages
allegedly caused to decedent by exposure to asbestos and cigarettes, with claims against
certain asbestos manufacturer defendants and certain tobacco company defendants, including
Liggett.
Lester, et al., v. John Crane-Houdaille, Inc., et al., Case No. 24-X-06-00068,
Circuit Court, Baltimore City, (case filed 5/10/09). Plaintiff is suing individually and as
Personal Representative of the Estate of William T. Sammons. Plaintiffs seek damages
allegedly caused to
decedent by exposure to asbestos and cigarettes, with claims against certain asbestos
manufacturer defendants and certain tobacco company defendants, including Liggett.
7
Mississippi
Granger v. B.A.T. Industries, P.L.C., et al., Civil Action No. 3:08- CV -216-HTW-LRA
, United States District Court, Southern District of Mississippi, Jackson Division (case
filed 3/5/08). One individual suing. The case was originally filed in the Circuit Court of
Copiah County, Mississippi and was removed to Federal Court in April 2008. The case has been
set for trial in January 2011.
Missouri
Nuzum v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corporation, et al., Case No. 03-CV-237237,
Circuit Court, Missouri, Jackson County (case filed 5/21/03). Two individuals suing.
Discovery is pending. Trial is scheduled for October 19, 2009.
New York
Brantley v. The American Tobacco Company, et al., Case No. 114317/01, Supreme Court
of New York, New York County (case filed 7/23/01). One individual suing.
Debobes v. The American Tobacco Company, et al., Case No. 29544/92, Supreme Court of
New York, Nassau County (case filed 10/17/97). One individual suing.
Gouveia, et al. v. Fortune Brands, Inc., et al., Case No. 210671/04, Supreme Court
of New York, Rensselaer County (case filed 9/16/1997). Two individuals suing. A Note of
Issue was served on February 12, 2008. Summary Judgment motions had been filed in May 2008,
but the court ordered that the parties revise and brief these motions after the outcome of a
Court of Appeals case, Rose v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. Defendants filed
the revised summary judgment motions on March 23, 2009.
Hausrath, et al. v. Philip Morris Inc., et al., Case No. I2001-09526, Supreme Court
of New York, Erie County (case filed 01/24/02). Two individuals suing. This is a Liggett
only case as all other defendants were voluntarily dismissed by plaintiffs.
James v. The American Tobacco Company, et al., Case No. 103034/02, Supreme Court of
New York, New York County (case filed 4/4/97). One individual suing.
Shea, et al. v. The American Tobacco Company, et al., Case No. 008938/03, Supreme
Court of New York, Nassau County (case filed 10/17/97). Two individuals suing.
Standish v. The American Tobacco Company, et al., Case No. 18418-97, Supreme Court
of New York, Bronx County (case filed 7/28/97). One individual suing.
Tomasino, et al. v. The American Tobacco Company, et al., Case No. 027182/97,
Supreme Court of New York, Nassau County (case filed 9/23/97). Two individuals suing.
Tormey, et al. v. The American Tobacco Company, et al., Case No. 2005-0506, Supreme
Court of New York, Onondaga County (case filed 1/25/05). Two individuals suing.
8
Yedwabnick, et al. v. The American Tobacco Company, et al., Case No. 20525/97,
Supreme Court of New York, Queens County (case filed 9/19/97). One individual suing. A
Note of Issue requesting a trial date is scheduled to be filed on October 30, 2009.
Ohio
Croft, et al. v. Akron Gasket & Packing, et al., Case No. CV04541681, Court of
Common Pleas, Ohio, Cuyahoga County (case filed 8/25/05). Two individuals suing.
West Virginia
Brewer, et al. v. The American Tobacco Company, et al., Case No. 01-C-82, Circuit
Court, West Virginia, Ohio County (case filed 3/20/01). Two individuals suing.
Little 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.
II. CLASS ACTION CASES
a) Smoking Related
Brown, et al. v. American Tobacco Co., Inc., et al., Case No. 711400, Superior Court
of California, County of San Diego (case filed 10/1/97). In April 2001, under the
California Unfair Competition Laws and the Consumer Legal Remedies Act, the court granted in
part the plaintiffs motion for certification of a class composed of residents of California
who smoked at least one of the defendants cigarettes from June 10, 1993 through April 23,
2001, and who were exposed to the defendants marketing and advertising activities in
California. The action was brought against the major U.S. cigarette manufacturers,
including Liggett, seeking to recover restitution, disgorgement of profits and other
equitable relief under California Business and Professions Code. Certification was granted
as to the plaintiffs claims that the defendants violated § 17200 of the California Business
and Professions Code pertaining to unfair competition. The court, however, refused to
certify the class under the California Legal Remedies Act or the plaintiffs common law
claims. Following the November 2004 passage of a proposition in California that changed the
law regarding cases of this nature, the defendants moved to decertify the class. In March
2005, the court granted the defendants motion. In May 2005, the plaintiffs appealed. In
September 2006, the California Court of Appeal affirmed the order decertifying the class.
In October 2006, the plaintiffs filed a petition for review with the California Supreme
Court. The petition for review was granted in November 2006. Oral argument was held on
March 3, 2009 and a decision is expected in June 2009.
Cleary, et al. v. Philip Morris, Inc., et al., Case No. 09 CV 1956, U.S. District
Court for Northern District of Illinois (case originally filed 6/3/98 in Circuit Court of
Cook County, Illinois). The action was brought on behalf of persons who have allegedly been
injured by (1) the defendants purported conspiracy pursuant to which defendants allegedly
concealed material facts regarding the addictive nature of nicotine; (2) the defendants
alleged acts of targeting their advertising and marketing to minors; and (3) the defendants
claimed breach of the publics right to defendants compliance with laws prohibiting the
distribution of cigarettes to minors. The plaintiffs request
that the defendants be required to disgorge all profits unjustly received through their sale
of cigarettes to plaintiffs. In March 2006 the court dismissed count V (public nuisance)
and count VI (unjust enrichment). In July 2006, the plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification and a class certification hearing was conducted in September 2007. The parties
are awaiting a decision. Merits discovery was stayed pending a ruling by the court on class
certification; class certification discovery is ongoing. On March 3, 2009, plaintiffs
filed a Third Amended Complaint replacing one named class representative with a new
plaintiff and adding new allegations regarding defendants sale of light cigarettes. In
March 2009, defendants filed a notice of removal to the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois. In April 2009, plaintiffs filed a motion to remand the case
back to the Circuit Court of Cook County. On April 17, 2009, plaintiffs in 11 lights class
actions, including Schwab, moved to consolidate these 11 actions for pretrial proceedings
before Judge Jack Weinstein in the Eastern District of New York in a Multi-district
Litigation entitled In Re: Light Cigarettes Product Liability Litigation.
9
In Re: Tobacco Litigation (Personal Injury Cases), Case No. 00-C-5000, Circuit
Court, West Virginia, Ohio County (case filed 1/18/00). Although not technically a class
action, the court consolidated approximately 750 individual smoker actions that were pending
prior to 2001 for trial on some common related issues. Liggett was severed from trial of
the consolidated action. A conference was held on February 10, 2009 which put into place a
new case management order and set a trial date for February 1, 2010. For more information
on this case, see Note 8. Contingencies.
Parsons, et al. v. A C & S 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 who allegedly have
personal injury claims arising from their exposure to cigarette smoke and asbestos fibers.
The case is stayed as a result of the December 2000 bankruptcy petitions filed by three
defendants in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware.
Schwab, et al. [McLaughlin] v. Philip Morris USA, Inc., et al., Case No.
1:04-CV-01945-JBW-SMG, USDC, Eastern District of New York (case filed 5/11/04). This class
action sought economic damages 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 September 2006, the
court certified a nationwide class of light smokers. The defendants appealed the
certification and, in April 2008, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
decertified the class. The case has been remanded to the district court. To date, no
further proceedings have been held. The time for defendants to respond to the Second
Amended Complaint is May 6, 2009. On April 17, 2009, plaintiffs in 11 lights class actions,
including Schwab, moved to consolidate these 11 actions for pretrial proceedings before
Judge Jack Weinstein in the Eastern District of New York in a Multi-district Litigation
entitled In Re: Light Cigarettes Product Liability Litigation.
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 purported
personal injury class action is brought on behalf of plaintiff and all similarly situated
residents in Louisiana who, though not themselves cigarette smokers, have been exposed to
secondhand smoke from cigarettes which were manufactured by the defendants, and who suffered
injury as a result of that exposure. The plaintiffs seek to recover an unspecified amount
of compensatory and punitive damages. In October 2004, the trial court stayed this case
pending the outcome of the appeal in Scott v. American Tobacco Co., Inc. For more
information on the Scott case, see Note 8. Contingencies.
b) Price Fixing
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 and discovery is
proceeding. No trial date has been set.
10
III. GOVERNMENTAL ACTIONS
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 approximately 40 hospitals (approximately 50 hospitals were originally
sued, but nine dismissed their claims with prejudice) seek to recover past and future costs
expended to provide healthcare to Medicaid, medically indigent, and non-paying patients
suffering from tobacco-related illnesses, from multiple defendants including Liggett Group
LLC and Vector Group Ltd.. In June 2005, the court granted defendants motion for summary
judgment as to claims for damages which accrued prior to November 16, 1993. The claims for
damages which accrued after November 16, 1993 are pending. Discovery is pending. Trial is
scheduled to commence on June 7, 2010.
Crow Creek Sioux Tribe v. 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).
The plaintiffs seek to recover actual and punitive damages, restitution, funding of a
clinical cessation program, funding of a corrective public education program and
disgorgement of unjust profits from sales to minors. The case is dormant.
IV. THIRD-PARTY PAYOR ACTIONS
General Health Services (Kupat Holim Clalit) v. Philip Morris, Inc., et al., Case
No. 1571/98, District Court, Jerusalem, Israel (case filed 9/28/98). General Health
Services seeks to recover the past and future value of the total expenditures for
health-care services provided to residents of Israel resulting from tobacco related disease
along with interest, increased and/or exemplary damages and costs. Motions filed by the
defendants are pending before the Israel Supreme Court, seeking appeal from a lower courts
decision granting leave to plaintiff for foreign service of process. A hearing occurred in
March 2005. A decision is pending. For more information on the General Health Services
case, see Note 8. Contingencies.
National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare, et al. v. Philip Morris
USA, Inc., et al., 1:08-CV-02021-RJD-JO, USDC, Eastern District of New York (case filed
5/20/08). Plaintiffs filed this action pursuant to the Medicare as Secondary Payer (MSP)
statute to recover for Medicare expenditures made from May 21, 2002 to the present.
Defendants Motion to Dismiss and Plaintiffs Motion for Partial Summary Judgment were filed
in July 2008 and have been fully briefed. A hearing on the motions was held on November 20,
2008 and, on March 5, 2009, the court granted the Defendants Motion to Dismiss the case.
On March 13, 2009, plaintiffs moved for reconsideration which was denied by the court.
11