presentation - Cloudfront.net

LORILLARD, INC.
FORM
8-K
(Current report filing)
Filed 06/27/13 for the Period Ending 06/27/13
Address
Telephone
CIK
Symbol
SIC Code
Industry
Sector
Fiscal Year
714 GREEN VALLEY ROAD
GREENSBORO, NC 27408
336.335.7000
0001424847
LO
2111 - Cigarettes
Tobacco
Consumer/Non-Cyclical
12/31
http://www.edgar-online.com
© Copyright 2014, EDGAR Online, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Distribution and use of this document restricted under EDGAR Online, Inc. Terms of Use.
UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C. 20549
FORM 8-K
CURRENT REPORT
Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
Date of Report (Date of earliest event reported): June 27, 2013
Lorillard, Inc.
(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)
DELAWARE
(State or other jurisdiction
of incorporation)
001-34097
(Commission File Number)
13-1911176
(IRS Employer
Identification No.)
714 Green Valley Road
Greensboro, North Carolina 24708-7018
(Address of principal executive offices, including zip code)
(336) 335-7000
(Registrant’s telephone number, including area code)
Check the appropriate box below if the Form 8-K filing is intended to simultaneously satisfy the filing obligation of the registrant under any of the following
provisions:
Written communications pursuant to Rule 425 under the Securities Act (17 CFR 230.425)
Soliciting material pursuant to Rule 14a-12 under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.14a-12)
Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 14d-2(b) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.14d-2(b))
Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 13e-4(c) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.13e-4(c))
Item 7.01 Regulation FD Disclosure.
Lorillard, Inc. (“Lorillard” or the “Company”) will be holding a webcast of its Investor Day at the Parker Meridien Hotel in New York City today, June 27, 2013 at
9:00 a.m. New York Time. The webcast will include a presentation by Murray S. Kessler, the Company’s Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer, and
other members of the Company’s management team and will be broadcast live over the Internet under the Investor Relations section of the Company’s website at
www.lorillard.com. A copy of the presentation is furnished as Exhibit 99.1 to this Current Report on Form 8-K (the “Form 8-K”). Reconciliations of any non-GAAP
measures included in the presentation to the most directly comparable GAAP measures are set forth in the appendix to Exhibit 99.1 hereto.
The information under Item 7.01 and in Exhibit 99.1 in this Form 8-K is being furnished and shall not be deemed to be “filed” for purposes of Section 18 of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) or otherwise subject to the liabilities of that section, nor shall it be incorporated by reference into a filing
under the Securities Act of 1933, or the Exchange Act, except as shall be expressly set forth by specific reference in such a filing.
Item 9.01. Financial Statements and Exhibits.
(d)
Exhibits
99.1
Lorillard, Inc. slide presentation dated June 27, 2013
SIGNATURE
Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned hereunto
duly authorized.
LORILLARD, INC.
(Registrant)
By:
Dated: June 27, 2013
/s/ David H. Taylor
David H. Taylor
Executive Vice President, Finance and Planning
and Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit 99.1
Investor
1June
27, Day
2013
Strategic
Introduction
Agenda
Regulatory
Legal
Financial
Additional
Bob
Murray
Neil
Bill
Ron
2David
All
True
Bannon
Milstein
Wilcox–
Update
Taylor
Kessler
Plan
–Guidance
Q&A
SVP,
Update
–––SVP,
Update
Investor
EVP,
EVP,
–R&D
Chairman,
Chief
(Lorillard-Style)
Legal
Finance
Relations
Compliance
&President
&
General
CFO Officer
Counsel
& CEO
Safe
of
within
“will
strategies
uncertainties,
anticipated
in
statements
circumstances
This
3looking-statements
forward-looking
You
Harbor
disclaimer.
and
the
thelikely
concerning
any
these
are
orDisclaimer
based
projected.
on
meaning
Private
may
forward-looking
speak
which
.10-Q
on
These
result”,
orcautioned
statements
current
words
future
any
isfilings
Information
filings
forward-looking
contain
statement
prospects,
many
with
Securities
You
are
only
and
expectations
the
statements
are
as
available
“expect”,
SEC.
the
financial
to
urged
that
of
similar
statement
reflect
certain
statements
available
inof
that
and
describing
performance
which
the
Litigation
possible
may
is time
based.
from
to
are
“intend”,
read
Lorillard,
any
and
actions
the
expressions.
statements
disclaimer
they
beyond
SEC
project,
by
change
factors
over
Lorillard,
projections
Reform
“plan”,
that
the
(including
are
Inc.’s
Internet
disclaimer,
inInc.
Act
indicate
made,
various
themade
In
are
or
control
addition,
expectations
on
also
is
“anticipate”,
that
of
hard
only
forward-looking
1995.
about
could
copy,
future
which
in
of
filings
and
this
and
or
future
revenues,
a brief
Lorillard,
imply
Forward-looking
are,
cause
Lorillard,
statements
isinfuture
summary
any
with
some
orstatement
beliefs
“estimate”,
actual
cases,
events
asincluded
presentation
defined
the
Inc.
available
Inc.
earnings
Securities
expressly
results,
and
by
of in
the
,from
and
are
that
Lorillard,
“believe”,
Act.
results
or
statements
are
Lorillard,
orany
subject
may
could
to
change
Lorillard
events,
growth
and
inherently
Inc.
Forward-looking
“forward-looking”
differ
disclaims
as
performance
be
Inc.
well.
Exchange
provided
cause
Inc.’s
undertaking
in events,
actual
’sto
rates),
“will
materially
Form
include,
a variety
results
any
be”,
ongoing
statutory
Forward-looking
obligation
statements
“will
Commission
statements
to differ
by
10-K
or management
continue”,
conditions
materially
without
forward
offrom
to
risks
update
limitation,
achievements,
those
and
from
or
business
or
Form
are
(“SEC”)
those
-
Murray S. Kessler
4Chairman,
President and Chief Executive Officer
Two
“To
“Responsibly”
A
“Bring”
Excellence
Superior
Preferred
5•“All
Compliance
Quality
Shareholders
Adult
Our
Can
call
Responsibly
Adult
Years
audience
be
toConsumers
cigars,
action
products
bySmokers”
across
Ago
adult
and
smokeless,
We
Bring
the
consumers
focus
Established
value
Newport
e-cigs
chain
Consistent
A
Pleasure
Powerful
message
ToVision
All Adult Smokers”
With A Goal
Dividend
+
EPS
Shareholder
6—12%
Yield
Total
Of Consistently
Return
Delivering A Double-digit Shareholder Return Over The Long-Term
4—5%
610—17%
Three Protect
Grow
Processes
7Carefully
CorePursue
Build
Strategies
The
Out
Adjacencies
& Capabilities
Core
Were Set
Close-in
Inand
Place To Pursue Our Vision
Source:
Fundamentally,
2010
Core
Non-Core
Flavor
16B
9B
29B
54B
Maverick
FF
8Menthol
Discount
Premium
NFF
Units
Units
Markets
Total:
Strength
Type
MSA,
FF
Non-Menthol
Newport
78B
Full
Non-Full
Share:
Markets
Newport
NFF
288B
Units
Flavor
Inc.
The
5.8%
Units
Share:
Excel
Flavor
Share:
Strategy
Menthol
Non-menthol
retail
3%
Menthol
Non-Menthol
41%
Was
30B
database.
Based
Total
18B
12B Total
Total
43B
Units
On Maintaining
Total
Units
Units
Newport
Units
Newport
Share:
OurShare:
Strength
74% 17%
In Full Flavor Menthol In Core Geographies
9And%
2010
15.7
100%
91.7
All
0.3
Others
Altria
RJR
[Graphic
Source:
Others
Pursuing
BU.S.
%
8.0
80%
Packs/Cans
MSA,
Appears
%
Tobacco
60%
Adjacencies
Inc.
40%
Here]
Excel
Market
20%retail
0%
In
Segmentation
Other
database.
Industry Segments As Well As Through Geographic Expansion
1234Source:
We
10
Identified
Key
Priorities
For
Adjacency
Build
Invest
Strengthen
Opportunistically
Newport
toLorillard
breakthrough
ourFour
less
Share
filings.
pursue
than
ininNon-Core
full-flavor
non-cigarette
*non-menthol
Earnings
Geographies
menthol
per
adjacencies
share
franchise
dataExpansion
adjusted to reflect 3-for-1 stock split effected January 15, 2013. See Appendix A for further discussion of adjustments
The Implementation
Annual
Retail
+13.9%
+6.5%
+0.6
+0.8
$3.00
2006
16%
$1.72
Newport
14.9%
14.4%
14.1%
12.9%
11.8%
11.0%
10.4%
10.0%
$2.82
$2.63
$2.25
$1.91
$1.71
pts
14%
2007
$2.50
$1.58
Market
CAGR
Adjusted
CAGR
per
Total
12%
2008
$2.00
year
Share
Lorillard
10%
2009
Earnings
$1.50
8%
Of2010
Our
6%
$1.00
Per
2011
Strategic
4%Share*
2%
2012
0%
Plan
2006Has
2007
Accelerated
2008 2009An
2010
Already
2011 Strong
2012 2013
Historic
YTDFinancial Performance
That
12
Annualized
$2.20
+79%
$3.00
Q3
$1.00
In
$5,000
$5,925
$7,500
$3,615
$2,254
$713
$2,500
2008
More
Dividends
Source:
millions
2008
Continues
$1,310
2009
than
$2.07
$4,191
$3,613
$2,026
Lorillard
Q3
Buybacks
$7.3
2010
$7,310
Dividend
$2.00
2009
$3,119
Billion
To
2011
filings.
Q3
$1.73
Consistently
$2,312
Per
2010
2012
Cash
$1.50
Since
Share
Q1
$1,589
Returned
$1.33
2011
Lorillard
Cumulative
Reward
$400
Q1
$1.23
to2012
Shareholders
spin-off
$944
Investors
Cash
Q1
$0 completed
$313
2013
Returned
Since Going
in June
Public
2008. Dividend data adjusted to reflect 3-for-1 stock split effected January 15, 2013.
ThatSales
13
Five
Net
64.0%
21.7%
49.8%
47.8%
15.0%
41.3%
RAI
MO
LO
Source:
-8.0%
Year
Consistently
49.3%
Bloomberg
(ex-FET)
Peer30.0%
Comparison
Outperforms
Adj.
and company
Operating
2007-2012
Peers
reports.
IncomeSee
Adjusted
Appendix
EPSA for further discussion of adjustments.
AndRatio
14
Stock
$27
P/E
Market
$44
2011
Source:
12.1
15.0
That
2012
Price
Cap
Bloomberg.
$12.1
$16.4
Ultimately
2013
P/E
(B) RatioAs
Contributed
of June 25,To2013
Significant Increases In Shareholder Value
Because
15
Newport
Newport’s
The
In
Significant
Lorillard
Lorillard’s
combination,
blu eCigs
Lorillard’s
full-flavor
continues
launch
geographic
capital
enhancements
acquisition
New
into
structure
to
menthol
Strategic
Initiatives
successfully
non-menthol
expansion
has
tocontinues
processes
inPlan
exceeded
the
have
strategy
Is
defend
core
has
Working
profitably
toand
expectations
continues
worked
improve
has
its
capabilities
Freedom
been
contributed
well
for
tosuccessful
remain
and
theto
have
benefit
positions
Operate
to
stable
been
Lorillard’s
ofmade
despite
Lorillard
shareholders
with
continued
increased
as
much
the clear
ofgrowth
menthol
theleader
investment
competition
in the behind
rapidly us
growing e-cig category
Because
16
Newport
Newport’s
The
In
Significant
Lorillard
Lorillard’s
combination,
blu eCigs
Lorillard’s
full-flavor
continues
launch
geographic
capital
enhancements
acquisition
New
into
structure
to
menthol
Strategic
Initiatives
successfully
non-menthol
expansion
has
tocontinues
processes
inPlan
exceeded
the
have
strategy
Is
defend
core
has
Working
profitably
toand
expectations
continues
worked
improve
has
its
capabilities
Freedom
been
contributed
well
for
tosuccessful
remain
and
theto
have
benefit
positions
Operate
to
stable
been
Lorillard’s
ofmade
despite
Lorillard
shareholders
with
continued
increased
as
much
the clear
ofgrowth
menthol
theleader
investment
competition
in the behind
rapidly us
growing e-cig category
Remember,
Flavor
100%
Non-M
Menthol
Volume
80%
39B
NonNFF
Full
Altria
Source:
17
Full
134B
60%
Non80%
Reynolds
Strength
MSA,
(Units)
Menthol
Flavor
40%
69B
Menthol
Full
60%
Lorillard
Inc.
20%
Full
2012
100%
Flavor
40%
Excel
Menthol
0%
Full
Competes
20%
2012
Flavor
retail
0%Menthol
database.
Within
Flavor Flavor
The Declining Cigarette Market With A Unique Product Portfolio
TheM
Volume
(Billion
FF
Core
-4.0
-1.1
1.5
-10.2
-20.9
-16.8
’05
Source:
18
–Full-Flavor
-6.5
Non-Core
’12
-8.7
-20.3
FFMSA,
Volume
Change
M
CAGR
NFF
Inc.
Core
Menthol
2005
Units)
-0.5%
MExcel
NFF
Non-core
vs.
+1.3%
Segment
retail
M
2012
FF-6.7%
database.
Core
NMContinues
FF
Non-Core
-5.5%
NM -6.4%
NFF
ToCore
Outperform
NM
-3.6%
Non-Core
NFF
-6.0%
NM
Other
Discount
-4.1%
Cigarette
-3.4% Industry Segments
It isOther
Premium
All
100%
2010
Newport
74%
Source:
19
the
74%
2011
Stability
MSA,
Premium
Full-Flavor
All
73%
2012
Other
Inc.
74%
2013
ofShare
Excel
the
All
Menthol,
YTD
Core
Other
Full-Flavor
retail
and
All
database.
Core
Our
Other
States
of
Stability
Menthol
80%
Year-to-date
60%
In Core
The
40%
Core
2013
States
Newport
That
as ofRemains
Newport
June 1, 2013.
The
Newport
Primary
Newport
Driver20%
Of Our
0% Success
Which
20
63
Loyalty
51
57
Newport
104
111
96
2010
84
2013
Source:
61Category
92
2013
Average
IsLorillard/TNS
Lorillard
Index
Net
Cigarettes
M
A Primary
Marlboro
Promoter
–=among
100
proprietary
Driver
NM
adult
Scores
most-often
Camel
Of
smoker
research.
Newport’s
NM
cigarette
tracking
Marlboro
Adult
Stability
brand
consumers
study
Msmoked
Camel
fielded
study
M
February
fielded2013.
AprilLoyalty
2010 and
Index
May=2013.
share of last 10 purchases for each brand / average.
Strong
21
Brand
Newport
Attribute
#2
#3
Is
Source:
always
made
Menthol
attribute
Newport
Lorillard
only
Menthol
fresh
Brand
from
tasting
preferences
Equity
Brand
the finest
IsTraces
Perception
a real
among
tobacco
To
pleasure
Apremium
Study,
Highly
Refreshes
to April
smoke
Differentiated
menthol
you
2012
Has
You
smokers
taste
want
Product
thattoissavor,
consistent
slowly
Is Is
very
a full-bodied
smooth smoke Is frequently on sale
Than
22
Brand
Newport
Attribute
#1
#2
OverallSatisfaction
Strength
Source:
Non-Menthol
Just
attribute
Lorillard
of
Non-Menthol
Menthol
Taste
preferences
Brand
National
is Too
Just Right
Weak
Product
among Newport
Opinion Panel,
Menthol
September
Smokers2009.
Attribute
Male
Menthol
Female
Large
Non-Metro
Northeast
South
Midwest
West
White
African
And
Index
Source:
23
A29
111
to
Metro
108
49
Highly
90
American
2008
48
U.S.
97
Newport
78
99
173
121
101
65
88
98
120
121
117
NSDUH,
Demographic
123
Differentiated
90
110
84
108
105
133
447
Menthol
85 89
259
201020
NonOverview
GFK
Consumer
Mediamark Research & Intelligence.
So While
Percentage
50%
2009
Source:
common
24
40%
2010
MSA,
retail
Competitors
30%
2011
of competitive
Inc.
price
20%
2012
Excel
of
10%
YTD
Have
theretail
premium
mainline
2013
Dramatically
database
menthol
brand.
YTD
Increased
brands
through
sold
Their
6/1/2013.
atDiscounting
a discount
Competitive
tointhe
The
typical
premium
Menthol
premium
menthol
Segment…
price*
brands include Marlboro Menthol and Camel Menthol. *Discount is defined as 50 cents or more per pack than the most
Source:
Lorillard
Menthol
Share
Newport
32%
41%
YTD
2009
25
30%
39%
2010
ofMSA,
the
Segment
Lorillard
&37%
28%
2011
Newport
Menthol
Inc.
26%
35%
2012
Share
Excel
24%
33%
Have
Segment
2013
ofretail
22%
31%
Continued
Cigarette
database,
Market
To year-to-date
Gain Share Of
2013
TheasMenthol
of June 1,
Segment,
2013. Which Has Also Gained Share
Without
26
Percentage
100%
59%
80%
Newport
40%
Source:
60%
95%
MSA,
Heavily
#2
54%
ofMenthol
Menthol
Inc.
Discounting
Excel
#3Volume
Menthol
retailLike
database,
Sold
Brand
Competitors
at Full
Brand
year-to-date
Price* through 6/1/2013. Full price is defined as within 50 cents per pack of the most common retail price of the mainline brand.
GoingAggressive
27
Refreshed
More
Expanded
Forward,
Product
Print Advertising
Lorillard
Direct
Offerings
Mail
Will
Program
Campaigns
Continue To Emphasize Brand-Building Over Discounting
In Order
Newport
25%
20%
15%
11.6%
2007
0%
5%
10%
18+
Source:
28
18-25
22.5%
19.3%
13.3%
2008
12.6%
National
To
market
2009
18.9%
14.1%
Keep
12.1%
2010
share
Survey
Newport
19.9%
2011
among
on20.8%
Relevant!
Drug
adultUse
smokers
and Health
age 18+
(NSDUH)
and 18-25
2007-2011
29 combination,
Newport
Newport’s
The
In
Significant
Lorillard
Lorillard’s
blu eCigs
full-flavor
continues
launch
Strategic
geographic
capital
enhancements
acquisition
New
into
structure
to
menthol
Plan
Initiatives
successfully
non-menthol
expansion
Is
has
tocontinues
Working
processes
inexceeded
the
have
strategy
defend
core
has
profitably
toand
expectations
continues
worked
improve
has
its
capabilities
Freedom
been
contributed
well
for
tosuccessful
remain
and
theto
have
benefit
positions
Operate
to
stable
been
Lorillard’s
ofmade
despite
Lorillard
shareholders
with
continued
increased
as
much
the clear
ofgrowth
menthol
theleader
investment
competition
in the behind
rapidly us
growing e-cig category
30 Post
Results
Volume
Market
-4.9%
Newport
4.3%
Pre
Lorillard
-1.1%
Total
5.5%
7.3%
Source:
5.0%
18.6%
Share
from
MSA,
Trends
Pre
& Total
Post
geographic
Inc.Lorillard
Excel expansion
retail
Went
database.
From
strategy
Declining
Pre-period
in theTo
non-core
isProfitably
2009 change
Growing
and Post-period
In The Non-core
is 2012 change.
•Driven
31
32,000By
Eliminating
Launching
new
ANewport
Total
retail
Newport’s
Company
plans
Redprice
nce 2009
Approach
disadvantage
in theOutside
non-core
in non-core
The Core
Lorillard’s
pite
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
32
Newport’s
The
In
Significant
Lorillard
Lorillard’s
increased
combination,
blu eCigs
Strategic
continues
launch
geographic
capital
enhancements
menthol
acquisition
New
Plan
into
structure
tocompetition
Initiatives
successfully
non-menthol
expansion
Is Working
has
tocontinues
processes
exceeded
have
strategy
defend
has
profitably
toand
expectations
worked
improve
has
its
capabilities
Freedom
been
contributed
well
forsuccessful
the
and
to
have
benefit
positions
Operate
to
been
Lorillard’s
ofmade
Lorillard
shareholders
with
continued
as
much
the clear
ofgrowth
theleader
investment
in the behind
rapidly us
growing e-cig category
Newport
Total
Core
100%
Winston
Other
Marlboro
40%
60%
2010
0%
20%
Source:
33
Marlboro
Markets
YTD
U.S.
Other
MSA,
Newport
Has
Marlboro
2013
Other
Gone
Inc.80%
Winston
Excel
From
Winston
retail
Nothing
Newport
database.
Camel
ToWinston
ACamel
5%
Year-to-date
Share
80%Of
Camel
The
2013Full-Flavor
Camel
as of June NM
1, 2013.
Segment (9% in Core)
And Because
Contribution
2012
Source
Premium
Competitive
Intend
Adopted
Pricing
Source:
34
Unit
to
of
Up
MSA,
as
purchase
Brands
Volume…
Volume
More
usual
Brands
to
Newport
Inc.
…74%
Than
brand
80%
Excel
(B)
90%
Red
35%
2.2
68%
retail
2012
IsSince
Highly
database.
Percent
Launch
It Isof
Lorillard
ALorillard
Meaningful
Newport
5.7%Contributor
domestic
Non-Menthol
unit volume
Source2013
of Business
Retail Market
Survey,Share
February
0.9 pts
2011. Pricing based on net price increases ex-FET.
And, Like
Brand
Attribute
Marlboro
OVerall
Menthol
Red
Liking
smoothness
35
attribute
ofsatisfaction
Nonoverall
strength
Newport
? Camel
preferences
taste
ofMenthol,
?taste
? ? among
Franchise
Newport
Consumers
Non-Menthol
Strongly
Smokers
Prefer the Product
Non-Menthol
Premium
89
Winston
80%
36
B Camel
unitsOther
Non-Menthol
100%
60%
Gold
40%
is the
Marlboro
Non-Full
Next Big
20%
Flavor
Opportunity
0%Units
2012byforBrand
Lorillard
]
Newport Non-Menthol Gold Has Been Deemed Substantially Equivalent by the FDA and Authorized for Marketing
37
Newport
Taste
–Packaging
-Pricing
Timing
hol
38
Second
Overall
Preferred
Priced
Product
in-line
Non
half
satisfaction
by
Test,
of
Menthol
awith
2013
margin
January
Newport
rating
Gold
of2011;
2:1
higher
….
Non-Menthol
inMSA,
The
consumer
than
Right
Inc.
theProduct
Excel
test
leading
Retail
at
brand
theDatabase
Right Time
as ofin06/15/13
the Right(52
Package
wks) Newport Non Menthol Gold Online Packaging Test, August 2011;
Lorillard’s
pite
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
39
Newport’s
The
In
Significant
Lorillard
Lorillard’s
increased
combination,
blu eCigs
Strategic
continues
launch
geographic
capital
enhancements
menthol
acquisition
New
Plan
into
structure
tocompetition
Initiatives
successfully
non-menthol
expansion
Is Working
has
tocontinues
processes
exceeded
have
strategy
defend
has
profitably
toand
expectations
worked
improve
has
its
capabilities
Freedom
been
contributed
well
forsuccessful
the
and
to
have
benefit
positions
Operate
to
been
Lorillard’s
ofmade
Lorillard
shareholders
with
continued
as
much
the clear
ofgrowth
theleader
investment
in the behind
rapidly us
growing e-cig category
Two
menthol
123Core
MST
40
International
Steps
Step
Years
related
Tobacco
Unrelated
Diversification
FullAgo,
Other
flavor
WeCPG
cigarettes
SaidOther
That cigarette
We Would
sub-segments
Evaluate Close-In
Cigars Adjacencies
(lighters, adjacencies
Most Related
etc. )To
(energy
Our Core
drinks, etc.) Other OTP
The
e-Cigarette
$1,200
$600
$20
2007
Source:
–“E-cigarette
“Wake
Ni
41
Bonnie
Mo
$50
Rapidly
$500
2008
,$1,000
up
UBS
UB
$5
Herzog,
call
$400
2009
U.S.
$0
consumption
Growing
Research
for
$1B
Sales
$250
2010
Wells
big
$800
tobacc
$200
2011
e-Cigarette
($millions)
estimates,
Fargo
could
$100
2012
cigssurpass
Eare
research
Category
2013
thetraditional
wave
Enote
Caught
of
dated
the
cigarettes
Our
future.
9/23/2012
Attention
in the next 10 years, especially given the rapid pace of innovation and consumers’ demand for reduced harm products.”
As More
Nearly
40%
21%
42
increase
of
6adult
in
And
10smokers
since
More
adults2010
Adult
were
had Smokers
tried
awareanofe-cig
Were
e-cigs
inBecoming
in
2011
2011 Aware And Trying e-Cigs
Awareness,
2011
100%
80%
40%
43%
60%
20%
23%
Aware
0%
5%
(at
Source:
43
least
2013
26%
11%
2013
Repeat
94%
ofLorillard
daily)
e-cigs
–2011
Trial,
26%
Usage
Trial
–Adult
And
22%
Use
Use
Tobacco
regularly
Have User
Continued
Survey;
ToOctober
Dramatically
2011 (n=800)
Increaseand
Since
May
The
2013
CDC
(n=523)
Study
E-cigs
Survey
100%
Tech
$25K
$25-$50
$50-$75
$75-$100
$100K
na
Female
Male
21-24
25-34
35-44
45-54
College
Some
Urban
H.S.
Prior
Age
Source:
*Tobacco
44
Source:
Sex
Post-Grad
Tobacco
College
80%
Suburban
Have
Respondent
Lorillard
Diploma
Income
ECH
60%
Broad
User*
Research
40%
Rural
Education
Adult
Appeal
Profile
99%
20%
Tobacco
/Opinionaire
0%
Among
among
Geography
User
those
Tobacco
Survey;
Prior
whoConsumers
have
October
tried2011
e-cigs(n=1,021)
Growth
e-cig
Use
Estimate
Source:
45
Less
Users
Lorillard
Isthat
Do
Being
Report
Not
2.5 Fueled
billion
36%
adult
Using
Use
tobacco
less
By
Less
Less
Smoker
cigarettes
or
consumer
44%
Completely
Conversion
Completely
willsurvey,
beReplacing
smoked
October
Replace
inCigarettes
2013
2012.
20%due
n=351;
to e-cigs
weighted to U.S. smoking population.
e-CigsVolume
Estimated
Adjusted
Pack
3,118
e-Cigarette
Source:
*Adjusted
46
-160
Are
MSA,
Cigarette
e-cig
Cigarette
-4.9%
Large
volume
Volume
Inc.
impact
Enough
30Excel
Cigarette
equates
Change
-129
Change
inretail
Q1
To
-3.9%
to=Industry
Now
2013
aTraditional
Percent
database.
1%Be
decline
E-Cigs
Negatively
Volume
cigarette
inIndustry*
traditional
Equalized
Impacting
change
cigarette
Volume
plus
U.S.e-cigarette
Cigarette
volume
Change Percent
volume
Trends (MM) from Year Ago Change to Packs (MM) from Year Ago Change
e-Cigs
•Tobacco
College
Cigarettes
47
FDA’sCan
“There
“Harm
of
reduction…a
Tobacco
is
Continuum
Harm
Smokeless
Physicians
aPlay
strong
Reduction
AProducts
Significant
scientific
ofProduc
Report)
fundamental
RiskScientific
and
Tobacco
Role
medicinal
component
InAdvisory
Reducing
Derive
foundation
from
of
Committee
The
many
Nicoti
Harm
for
aspects
acknowledged
tobacco
FromofTobacco
medicine
har reduction,
there
and…everyday
is which
a continuum
shows
life…has
of
great
riskpotential
not
withbeen
regard
as
applied
atopublic
tobacco
to smoking
health
products.
strategy
but hastothe
millions
potential
of smokers.
to save millions
“(American
of lives
Council
and deserves
on Science
consideration.”
and Health) (2007 Royal
And
American
Health
“They’re
delivery
hurt
Dr.
Cahn(2011)
Journal
“…a
available
be
cigarettes
toxicity
replacement
48
much
Richard
Elizabeth
Jonathan
Siegel
by
There
preponderance
“To
the
of
to
device…you’re
safer
(e-cigarettes)
evidence
and
Council
Public
&
conventional
Is
nicotine.”
dismiss
Carmona
Harm
products.”
Zachary
Foulds(2011)
Accumulating
Whelan
comparable
thanHealth
Reduction
of
shows
tobacco
(e-cigarettes)
ofScience
Dr.
(2013)
the
aillness
nicotine
Policy
not
clean
Brad
them
in
thousands
American
burned.”
Evidence
going
large
U.S.
Journal
and
over
nicotine
Rodu
to
“[U]sers
will
and
formed
NJOY
Surgeon
health
tothe
switching
otherwise
(2011)
be
of
Practice
Association
not
To
next
consider
toxic
public
are
Board
benefit…”
even
Support
when
General
20
not
International
agents
“…a
who
to
years…”
die
of
tobacco
exposed
ite-cigs
of
This
Directors
…
of
national
(2002-2006)
are
current
from
Public
would
a tobacco
looking
is
will
toJournal
e-cig
smaller
the
harm
adult
be
likely
“Comparatively,
ause
for
related
disservice
American
of
reduction
(if
yield
alternatives”
are
Clinical
any)
likely
a and
save
to
smokers
Health
much
the
temporarily
the
thelives
potential
health
Physicians
whoof risks
cigarettes
4million
attractiveness
(2010)
initiative,
toto8current
million
based
of Esmokers,
partly oncould
the
For Example
Vapor
Nicotine—1%
Nicotine—3%
Glycerin—73%
Blu
Source:
49
eCig
vsLorillard
Leading
Smoke
Glycerin–
Carbon
Analysis
and
brand
bluMonoxide—34%
of2%
eCigs
low-tar
Flavors
proprietary
cigarettes
and Combustion
data,
99 puffs
2013.9Flavors—11%
puffs
bi-products – 41% Water—15% Water – 20%
Harmful
Market
Class
Cigarette
Carbon
Carbonyls
Phenolics
Volatiles
TSNAs
PAA
PAH
*Source:
50
Below
0.000024
0.00223
%Leading
Monoxide
0.000550
Lorillard
Difference
the
Constituents
1.430
90.204
2.366
puffs
lowest
<<<0.00004
<
Gold
<(1
0.000001
and
0.003
<0.002
27
0.074
detectable
0.000019
cigarette)
mg
blu
Are
blu
***97.0
eCigs
<99.8
Product
At
99.1
98.2
*0.1
95.5
Or
*99
%
level.
%
mg
%
%
96.5
proprietary
Below
less
puffs
less
less
%
less
*%
less
99.6
less
Detectable
%data,
less based
Levels
on Canadian Intense Smoking Method.
Harmful
Market
Class
Cigarette
Carbon
Carbonyls
cigarette
Phenolics
No
Volatiles
products
many
TSNAs
PAA
amounts
PAH
*Source:
51
Below
combustion
0.000024present.
0.00223
%
constituents
Leading
Monoxide
0.should000550
Lorillard
Difference
the
Constituents
in
1.430
90.204
2.366
puffs
blu,
lowest
< <so
0.00004
<
GoldAt
<(1
and
0.003
0.002
to
27
methods
0.074
detectable
cigarette)constituents99
measure
mg
blu
Are
<*not
least
**97.0
0.000001
eCigs
from
blu,
At
Levels
98.2
required
beOr
98%blu
actual
%
new
level.
blu<
<%
proprietary
Below
less
0.000019
so
less
analytical99.8
*0.1vs.mg
99.low1
95.5
Productless
Detectable
%*data,
puffs
less
96.5
%inless
* 99.6
based
%
%Levels
less
less
% on
lessCanadian Intense Smoking Method.
After
Superior
Highest
Unique
Well-rounded
Disposables
All
Potential
52
retail
Careful
&
brand
Product
for
channels
proprietary
&
Lorillard
Evaluation,
portfolio
awareness
rechargeables
positioning
to be
Lorillard
the category
Purchased
leaderblu e-Cigs
Since
Quarterly
40%+
$60
$40
$30
$20
$10
Q2
Source:
53
2012
$57
11%
Outlets
$14
$8
Lorillard’s
Market
$0
MSA,
$50
Q3
Market
blu2012
$39
eCigs
Share
Inc.
Share—~12,000
Acquisition,
Q4
Excel
net
~80,000
2012
sales
retail
Q1
Retail
blu
database
2013
e-Cigs
Retail
Outlets
for
Haselectronic
Emergedcigarettes.
As The Clear Leader by Far In The Category
With
First
Rechargeable
Kits—27%
By
51%
Disposables
Tobacco
Other
StoresInternet—14%
Gas/Convenience
Food
40%
Drug
Source:
29%
54
Products
Sales
Quarter
A
&
Stores
10%
Strong
Lorillard
7%
Channel
22%
2013
Cartomizers
Business
Stores
and
blublu
eCigs
Across
eCigs
sources
company
All Products
of dollar
data;and
sales
MSA,
Channels,
Inc. Excel
blu eCigs
retail is
database
Doublefor
thee-cigarettes.
Size of the Next Closest Brand
Beyond
Aided
2011
100%
60%
80%
40%
25%
20%
0%
blu
Source:
55
eCigs
na15%
50%
35%
22%
2013
86%
brand
naLorillard
Sales
NJOY
46%
33%
22%
awareness
&21%
29%
Share,
V2Cigs
Adult
32%
Consumer
by
Tobacco
GreenSmoke
currentUser
Research
e-cigSurvey;
eSmoke
usersAlso
October
Cigalectric
Demonstrates
2011
21st
(n=800)
Century
blu’s Leadership
and May 2013
in Awareness
(n=523). Brand awareness = heard of or used.
AndeCigs
Brand
100%
Other
Green
21st
blu
2011
Source:
56
Century
blu’s
May
Other
80%
most
Smoke
Lorillard
blu
Leadership
2013
60%
used
eSmoke
eCigs
eSmoke
40%
by
Adult
those
20%
NJOY
inTobacco
Usage
who
0%
NJOY
have
User
tried
Survey;
e-cigsOctober 2011 (n=196) and May 2013 (n=223).
Why Because blu Is A Brand-Builder
57
blu Is A Brand-Builder
58
blu Is A Brand-Builder
59
blu80
Forefront
The
At
Is
Product
blu’s
Rechargeable
Superior
Digital
E-liquid
On-the-Go
State-of-the-art
Consistent
*(mg)
40
Puff
Source:
puff
60
eCigs
counts
Count
*120
Nicotine
chip
Lorillard
made
product
Puff-by-Puff
160
nicotine
recharging
120
technology
Products
in
200
quality
and
Aerosol
USA
taste
and
240
delivery
240
blu
&controls
Nicotine
280
value
eCigs
overResearch
Yield
life of product
& Development. Magnificent Menthol and Classic Tobacco Premium high nicotine products under the Canadian Intense Smoking Method. * Rechargeable batteries replaced at
NewPack
Old
MSRP
Size
Battery
Retailer
61
Cigarette
Streamlined
$59.99
Pack
margin
Newcharge
pack
$34.99
Pack
~20%
On-the-Go
Slim
indicator
~30%
as a Rechargeable
smart
Pack &
phone
cig charge
Kit Will
indicator
Further blu’s Technology Lead
blu’s component
Proprietary
Areas
Unique
New
Longer
Custom
Redundant
Automated
Intellectual
62
Technology
ofbattery
juice
processor
current
battery
assembly
technology
Property
storage
life
development:
technologies
Team
with
safety
protection
& advances
proprietary
delivery
Infeatures
SilicontoValley
algorithms
furtherContinues
blu’s innovation
To Constantly
lead Innovate
Acquisition
The
Electronic
(in
Net
Gross
Adjusted
Source:
63
millions)
Sales
Profit
Lorillard
Operating
$Cigarette
61
Has
$ 21
$ Already
57
$filings.
21
Income
Segment
See
Been
$Appendix
Results
7Accretive
$ 7 FYA2012
for further
2013-Q1
discussion of adjustments
Newport
Newport’s
The
In
Significant
Lorillard
Lorillard’s
64
combination,
blu eCigs
full-flavor
continues
launch
Strategic
geographic
capital
enhancements
acquisition
New
into
structure
to
menthol
Plan
Initiatives
successfully
non-menthol
expansion
Is
has
tocontinues
Working
processes
inexceeded
the
have
strategy
defend
core
has
profitably
toand
expectations
continues
worked
improve
has
its
capabilities
Freedom
been
contributed
well
for
tosuccessful
remain
and
theto
have
benefit
positions
Operate
to
stable
been
Lorillard’s
ofmade
despite
Lorillard
shareholders
with
continued
increased
as
much
the clear
ofgrowth
menthol
theleader
investment
competition
in the behind
rapidly us
growing e-cig category
New
Delivered
Net
Revenue
B
Adjacency
$5.9
Half
Comparison
B50%
Of
+$0.7
Initiatives
Lorillard’s
B $51
From
Revenue
Our Strategic
Growth Plan Have
46$6.6
265
2010
•%
TOTAL
Source:
Newport
blu
Geographic
From
eCigs
2012
Lorillard
Adjacencies
$346
Red
$61
Expansion
$234
9%
filings.
34%
($mil)
7%
And Helped
Volume
Pre-Strategic
+2.2
Including
-45
-30
+4.3
Source:
-51
-39
66
Altria
MSA,
Change
Strategic
Reynolds
Us
Plan
Inc.
Strengthen
(billions
(2005
domestic
Plan (2005
vs.
ofOur
cigarettes)
2010)
shipment
vs.
Cigarette
2012)
dataBusiness Versus Competition
Newport
Newport’s
The
In
Significant
Lorillard
Lorillard’s
67
combination,
blu eCigs
full-flavor
continues
launch
Strategic
geographic
capital
enhancements
acquisition
New
into
structure
to
menthol
Plan
Initiatives
successfully
non-menthol
expansion
Is
has
tocontinues
Working
processes
inexceeded
the
have
strategy
defend
core
has
profitably
toand
expectations
continues
worked
improve
has
its
capabilities
Freedom
been
contributed
well
for
tosuccessful
remain
and
theto
have
benefit
positions
Operate
to
stable
been
Lorillard’s
ofmade
despite
Lorillard
shareholders
with
continued
increased
as
much
the clear
ofgrowth
menthol
theleader
investment
competition
in the behind
rapidly us
growing e-cig category
Significant
Preparedness
Corporate
FDA
Stage
Marketing
R&D
Pilot
New
IT
Retail
Enhanced
B2B
Integration
Information
State
Government
Town
Employee
Investor
Increased
68
Communications
Modernization
Website
Equipment
Product
Plant
Readiness
Government
Reorganization
&
Hall
Shipment
Gate
Relations
Meetings
Participation
Sales
Compliance
Roundtables
Restructure
Upgraded
Meetings
of
Enhancements
Technology
Relations
Capabilities
For
Process
bluForce
Data
Installed
FDA/GMP
eCigs
Relations
Day
with
Warehouse
Established
Automation
Department
atLegislators
Investor
in
Created
Were
Many
Function
Made
Upgraded
Events
Areas
System
Established
Established
To Processes And Capabilities
Identified
2010
Adjacent
Core
Product
Sales
Brand
Direct
Regulatory
69
Expansion
2013
Execution
Marketing
Mail
Development
Adjacent
As
Affairs
Opportunities
Core Expansion
Back In 2010
Much
80
060
20
40
$$40
2010
200
400
$398
$451
$498
600
Source:
70
millions
$742011
$56
OfLorillard
Incremental
CapEx
Adjusted
2012 filings.
SG&A
Investment
See Appendix
to Build
A for
Process
further
anddiscussion
Capabilities
of adjustments.
is Behind Us
Newport
Newport’s
The
In
Significant
Lorillard
Lorillard’s
71
combination,
blu eCigs
full-flavor
continues
launch
Strategic
geographic
capital
enhancements
acquisition
New
into
structure
to
menthol
Plan
Initiatives
successfully
non-menthol
expansion
Is
has
tocontinues
Working
processes
inexceeded
the
have
strategy
defend
core
has
profitably
toand
expectations
continues
worked
improve
has
its
capabilities
Freedom
been
contributed
well
for
tosuccessful
remain
and
theto
have
benefit
positions
Operate
to
stable
been
Lorillard’s
ofmade
despite
Lorillard
shareholders
with
continued
increased
as
much
the clear
ofgrowth
menthol
theleader
investment
competition
in the behind
rapidly us
growing e-cig category
Lorillard’s
Menthol
Leading
Settlement
NPM
Won
TPSAC
Successful
72
Graphic
Lawsuit
the
Debate
Freedom
FDA
Way
Warnings
Inspections
is Reasonable
To Operate
Case e-cig
Successfully
Regulation
Defended But An Ongoing Challenge
Newport
Newport’s
The
In
Significant
Lorillard
Lorillard’s
73
combination,
blu eCigs
full-flavor
continues
launch
Strategic
geographic
capital
enhancements
acquisition
New
into
structure
to
menthol
Plan
Initiatives
successfully
non-menthol
expansion
Is
has
tocontinues
Working
processes
inexceeded
the
have
strategy
defend
core
has
profitably
toand
expectations
continues
worked
improve
has
its
capabilities
Freedom
been
contributed
well
for
tosuccessful
remain
and
theto
have
benefit
positions
Operate
to
stable
been
Lorillard’s
ofmade
despite
Lorillard
shareholders
with
continued
increased
as
much
the clear
ofgrowth
menthol
theleader
investment
competition
in the behind
rapidly us
growing e-cig category
Lorillard’s
2010
Leverage
Q1
Long-Term
Shares
Dividend
*Weighted
2011
Repurchased
Reflects
1.0
Payout
Average
2012
Capital
Debt
X 1.3X
201363%
$500
$1.77
Structure
Interest
(millions)
1.6
66%
million
BX$2.60
Rate
1.8
73%
Continues
debt
27.0
X*
B
on
nm
$3.11
Debt
issuance
46.7To
B
14.8
6.2%
Be
$3.60
on
3.8
Improved
5.7%
May
B* 5.2%
15, 2013.
5.0%*
See Appendix A for further discussion of leverage.
74
As A
500
400
Indexed
to
Prices
0Jan-02
100
LO
Source:
75
S&P
+366.4%
300
Result
+40.5%
Jan-03
Bloomberg.
200
500OfJan-04
Lorillard’s
From
Jan-05
Carolina
Remarkable
Jan-06 Group
Jan-07
Brand
IPO
Jan-08
Strength,
on 1/31/2002
Jan-09Investors
Jan-10
through
Jan-11
Have
6/25/2013.
Been
Jan-12
Rewarded
Jan-13 Over the Long-term
As Well
Total
150%
100%
125%
50%
75%
Lorillard
0%
25%
Beverage
Source:
76
42.2%
Return
140.4%
95.4%
Bloomberg.
as
S&P
&Over
Tobacco
Comparison
500
theFood,
Total
Medium-Term
S&P
6/2008
return
500
data
– 5/2013
– from
Despite
6/30/2008
the Regulatory
throughOverhang
5/31/2013.
And,%RJR
2012
0.2
90.5
RJR
100%
80%
40%
60%
Non-Full
0%
20%
Altria
Non-Menthol
Source:
77
%
RJR
Altria
We
U.S.
RJR
8.8
MSA,
Still
Flavor
RJR
All
Tobacco
%
Altria
Others
0.5
Menthol
Have
Others
Inc.
Non-Menthol
%
Altria
Excel
Market
Lots
Menthol
RJR
Of
retail
Segmentation
Running
Full-Flavor
database.
Sn s Room
15.1
MSTB -Cigs
Packs/Cans
Delivering
Summary
Gaining
Launching
Continuing
Remaining
As
78
always,
market
adjacent
superior
focused
rewarding
to beshare
first
on
results
new
and
for
shareholders
tight
products
the
best
despite
cost
11th
incontrol
e-cigarettes
to
consecutive
competitive
isaccelerate
the top priority
with
year
environment
growth
blu eCigs
While
Introduction
Agenda
Strategic
Regulatory
Bill
Legal
Financial
Additional
79
True
Update
Lorillard’s
Plan
–Guidance
Q&A
SVP,
Update
Bob
Ron
Update
R&D
All
Bannon
Fundamentals
Milstein
Neil
(Lorillard-Style)
Murray
Wilcox
– –Investor
EVP,
Kessler
–Clearly
SVP,
Legal
Relations
David
– Chief
Chairman,
Lead
&Taylor
General
The
Compliance
Industry,
–President
EVP,
Counsel
Officer
Finance
Regulation
& CEO
& CFO
Worries Investors
Regulatory
Neil
June
80
Wilcox,
27, 2013
Update
SVP & Chief Compliance Officer Bill True, SVP Research & Development
Update On preparations
Lorillard’s
81
The Regulatory
for Environment
FDA regulations Corporate Compliance infrastructure New FDA / CTP Director Substantial Equivalence (SE) FDA e-cigarettes deeming regulation Menthol
What Has team
Established
Recruited
Compliance”
82
Lorillard
a across
new
to build
Corporate
Done
the aenterprise
foundation
To Compliance
Ensure
Invested
Regulatory
of excellence
department
to modernize
Compliance?
based upon
manufacturing
demonstrated
facility
expertise Ensured corporate policies and procedures that meet or exceed all federal, state and local regulations Established a “Culture of FDA
Lorillard’sscreen
Implemented
Advanced
Microwave
83
Sustained
and
Modernized
magnetic
systems
Effort
detection
State-of-the-art
Equipment
To Modernize
systems
for NTRM
sorters
And Prepare
(Non-Tobacco
For FDARelated
Compliance
Material) Detection
Lorillard’s
Installed
Robotic
Upgrades
tracking
84
Palletizers
and
Significant
Sustained
tracingbyEngineering
Effort
Complex
To Modernize
State-of-the-art
And Prepare
Dryers RFID
For FDA
(Radio
Compliance
Frequency Identification) system upgrade Upgraded blending and menthol systems New Maker and Rod Making complexes Improved product
WeModernization
IT
In-Sourcing
Lorillard’s
Prepared
85
continue
forManufacturing,
Sustained
of
FDA
toR&D
Build
Regulations
analyte
Effort
our Processes
IT
totesting
and
Modernize
R&D
and
Upgraded
Capabilities
are
and
Well
Prepare
Pilot Plant
for FDA Compliance
Rigorousconsultant
Prepared
External
86
for
Regulatory
FDA Inspections
audits
Compliance
TrainingPreparations
Internal audits Practice inspections
What
FDA
Over
127
Operations’
All
87
requested
SOPs
conducted
5,000
Were(Standard
pages
The
Work
information
unannounced
Results
of
Instructions
documents
Operating
Ofprovided
Our
routine
for
Procedures)
Regulatory
every
within
inspections
work
turn-around
Compliance
station
of all
Complete
time
Lorillard
Preparations?
<2 hours
listing
facilities
of all
Atingredients
FDA’s request
and packaging
during the supplies
inspections,
Billsweofprovided:
Materials for twelve targeted brands
FDA
Wrap-up
Exceptional
“A
Inspectors
Provided
Lorillard’s
Regulatory
88
Model
Inspector
session:
FDA
of
praised
Compliance
Challenges
preparation
Cooperation”
an
Feedback
opportunity
our level
Infrastructure
(efficiency
– “Outstanding”
of to
sophistication
learn
of isabout
responses
Ready
thetoindustry
and
Meet
quality
a Established
ll of information)
a baseline for GMP preparedness
WhatFDA
Outspoken
Led
harm
Mitch
89
reduction
Impact
Zeller,
task
tobacco
Will
JD
force
andCTP’s
control
reevaluating
on tobacco
New
advocate
Director
regulations
nicotineHave
regulation
under
On The
Commissioner
Engaged
Tobaccoand
Industry?
David
constructive
Kesslermeeting
Workedwith
at American
Lorillard Legacy Foundation Consultant and lobbyist for pharma (NRTs) in private practice (Pinney Associates) Supports
What
Mitch
Expected
SE
Although
Decisions
90
submissions
Impact
Zeller,
to
No
and
drive
Will
Friend
JD
Reduce
Deeming
aCTP’s
more
ofUncertainty
Tobacco,
New
aggressive
Regulation
Director
Mr.regulatory
Menthol
Zeller
HaveWill
onagenda
the
Likely
Tobacco
Committed
DriveIndustry?
to “Follow-the-Science” Required to navigate within FDA’s regulatory framework Top three priorities:
“FDA Announces First Decisions On New Tobacco Products”
91
“…Today’s
products
public
Lorillard
On
exemptions
92
June
health
25,
to
Is be
The
have
SE
2013
than
substantially
orders
First
been
Lorillard
theAnd
predicate.”
denied
allow
Only
and
equivalent
the
Our
the
To
marketing
91
proactive
Have
FDA
to made
New
predicate
ofinitiatives
two
Products
history
new
products,
with
have
Lorillard
Deemed
the
included
based
first
Tobacco
Substantially
on
ever
multiple
thepremarket
Company
company’s
meetings
Equivalent
authorizations
tobacco
submissions
with
And
products:
FDA,
Authorized
for
and
hundreds
two
Newport
other
new
forreadily
ofMarketing
tobacco
hours
Non-Menthol
available
ofproducts
preparations
science
Gold
FDA
Box
and
has
100s
over
information
nowand
3,600
approved
Newport
pages
thattwo
demonstrate
Non-Menthol
of SEs,
supporting
denied
that
documentation
Gold
four,
each
Box.
136
product
have
The agency
been
will not
withdrawn
has
present
foundmore
and
these
20harm
two
SE to the
Whatregulations
FDA
Prevent
Fair
Ensure
93
announced
Isproduct
clear
The Current
public
safety
are
intention
needed
health
Status
and to
quality
benefits
Of
regulate
E-cigarettes
Prevent
Inhibit
e-cigarettes
underage
new
Andtechnological
Deeming
in use
2011 Primary
Regulations?
advancements
concern: Over
StifleRegulation
product innovation
WhatZeller
Mr.
Lorillard
Final
94
regulations
Is The
isappears
prepared
Current
will
toto
Status
support
take
vigorously
some
Ofe-cigarette’s
E-Cigarettes
time
respondharm
with
Andreduction
aDeeming
harm reduction
potential
Regulations?
strategy
Deeming
This
regulations
approach expected
is stronglythis
supported
year Weby
anticipate
UK and initial
other countries
draft regulations
Public pressure
to be somewhat
will demand
restrictive
flexibility and allow for continued improvements
Lorillard’s
Summary
We
95
have received
compliance
the first
infrastructure
and only SE
is Orders
well established
for new tobacco
We have
products
successfully
We look
passed
forward
routine
to working
inspections
withWe
theare
FDA
wellonprepared
e-cig regulations
for GMPsLorillard’s
when implemented
is well prepared
Excellent
for communications
all regulatory requirements
have been established
and actionswith CTP
What About Potential Regulatory Action on Menthol?
But…
96
Review of
William
97
R.Menthol
True, Ph.D.
Science
Senior Vice President Research and Development
Whatselection
Robust
Data
Weight
98
availability
Do
design
ofWe
evidence
Mean
to
andsupport
statistical
by
across
Sound
study
multiple
treatment
Science
objective
studies
explained
/ hypothesis
clearly
Conclusions
Study limitations
drawn clearly explained and supported by data Reproducible Full Transparency
“This
of
Epidemiology
No
The
99
menthol
Difference
Science
Industry
review
cigarettes
isMenthol
ofBiomarkers
Clear:
the scientific
are
Menthol
Report,
atToxicology
noevidence,
Chapter
greater
Cigarettes
risk
3.
Chemistry
which
are
of not
developing
includes
More
Smoking
Dangerous
epidemiology
smoking-related
Topography
thanstudies,
Non-Menthol
diseases
as well
than
as
Cigarettes
are
those
non-menthol
of biomarkers
smokers.”
of exposure and harm, smoking topography, and toxicology and chemistry, clearly demonstrates that smokers
Menthol
Risk
Higher
*Statistically
1Lee
100
Post-TPSAC
smokers
of
2010
Risk
Lung
Smokers
– 2.00
“A
Significant
Cancer
combined
Equal
DoMenthol
Not
Risk
Have
analysis
1.00
Smokers
Higher
Lower
of lung
Risk
vs.Risk
Non-menthol
cancer
Of0.00
Lung
studies
Cancer
Smokers
shows
(and
noPerhaps
difference
Less)
in risk.”
Compared
2Rostron,
To Non-Menthol
2012 assessed
Smokers
lung cancer mortality 3Muscat, 2012 (unpublished) now-menthol smoker compared to non-menthol
Biomarkers
–PM
Vast
Source:
Biomarker
www.fda.gov.
Serum
No
101
NoDifference
Total
majority
difference
Cotinine
Sarkar
Exposure
Nicotine
ofof
Exposure
M.,
in
when
COHb
studies
biomarkers
Biomarker
Study
Equivalents
evaluated
3OHC/Cotinine
measuring
Show
– 3,600
of
Comparisons
No
by
Total
exposure
Adult
Difference
biomarkers
raceNNAL
Ratio
Smokers,
Between
Nicotine
Between
of exposure
31 Adult
States
Gluc.
Menthol
found
Menthol
Biomarkers
Ratio
and
no
CotinineGluc.
Non-Menthol
difference
andof
Non-Menthol
Exposure
Ratio
Smokers
Cigarette
3OHC Gluc.
Smokers.
Ratio NNALGluc.
Presentation Ratio
to the Tobacco Products Scientific Advisory Committee, July 15-16, 2010, available at
Biomarkers
PM
Only
differences
potential
menthol
Reported
smokers
biomarkers
Biomarker
HDL
LDL
Oxidized
Total
Hs
Triglycerides
White
11-dehyrdrothromboxane-B2
8-epa-Prostaglandin-F2?
FEV1
Source:
102
www.fda.gov.
C-Reactive
Total
Cholesterol
large
Cholesterol
Blood
Sarkar
and
harm
LDL
no
Exposure
study
No
in
of
of
difference
non-menthol
Cells
biomarkers
potential
Difference
Potential
between
Protein
M.,
to Biomarker
examine
Study
in
harm
Harm
of Comparisons
Show No Difference
BetweenBetween
Adult Menthol
Mentholand
andNonNon-Menthol
101 Menthol
Smokers
Cigarette Smokers. Presentation to the Tobacco Products Scientific Advisory Committee, July 15-16, 2010, available at
TheDifference
No
African
Based
103
Behavioral
onAmerican
weightScience
ofIncidence
evidence
also Levels
DOES
of scientifically
NOT
Initiation
Support
sounds
Cessation
a Difference
studies
Youth smoking,
in Public Health
incl. African
ImpactAmericans
Between Menthol
Transition
and
toNon-Menthol
established smoking
Cigarettes
DespiteAfrican
20.6%
16.7%
Non-menthol
Average
White
28.7%
83.3%
Menthol
Smoking
American
104
19.4%
National
a incidence:
Incidence
Preference
71.3%
19.0%NHIS
for Menthol,
(2011) and
African
NSDUH
American
(2011)Smoking
103 Menthol
Incidence
smokers:
is LOWER
NHIS (2011),
Than White
NSDUH
Smoking
(2011)Incidence
And,
Age
African
19.5
20.0
18.0
18.5
19.0
16.5
17.0
17.5
15.0
15.5
8642016.0
10
12
Youth
105
White
Start
White
NHIS
African
Smoking
smoking
American
African
Smoking
NHANES
Menthol
Non-menthol
American
rates
Rate
American
Menthol
from
(12-17)
NSDUH
Smokers
NSDUH
Begin
2011Smoking Later and Have A Much Lower Youth Smoking Rate
Despite
There
Menthol
86420(in
10
12
14
Smoking
American
106
White
millions)
areWhat
African
Smokers
incidence:
overSome
2x more
NHIS
MayWhite
Suggest,
(2011)
menthol
and
TheNSDUH
Vast
smokers
Majority
(2011)
than African
of105
Menthol
Menthol
American
Smokers
smokers:
menthol
areNHIS
White
smokers
(2011), NSDUH (2011)
Across
20%
25%
30%
35%
15%
1999
0%
5%
10%
Menthol
107
Youth
2000
All
Market
market
2001
Demographics,
Smoking
share
2002
ShareRate
2003
(MSAI)
as2004
Menthol
Youth
2005smoking
Market
2006 2007
Share
rate2008
(NSDUH
Has2009
Increased,
2011)
2010 2011
Youth Smoking Rates Have Steadily Decreased
There is No Correlation Between Menthol Share and Youth Smoking in the U.S., at the State Level
108
Thereconclude
“We
Oxford
female.”
109
isEconomics
Also No
thatCorrelation
there
2012 is no between
evidenceInternational
to support the
Youth
hypothesis
Smoking
thatPrevalence
greater availability
and Menthol
of menthol
Marketcigarettes
Share
(as represented by market share) is associated with higher youth smoking prevalence – overall, male and
And Despite
2010
100%
80%
60%
70%
50%
First
Source:
110
Menthol
Nonmenthol
40%
national
wave
CPS-TUS
90%
Current
30%
ofClaims
2010
survey
20%
reasons
data
10%
That
to contain
is
for0%
Menthol
available
smoking
these
Makes
(Two
menthol/non-menthol
questions
additional
Cigarettes waves
Less Harsh,
cigarettes
to come)
Smokers Disagree and Instead Choose Menthol for Flavor
TheDifference
Cessation
No
Mixed
Unfavorable
Pre-TPSAC
Source:
Population
111
Weight
Results
Covance,
nSurvey,
=of
nn=
Menthol
37
=or
nEvidence
31
3721
=Effect
Inc.
Post-TPSAC
Post-TPSAC
10
PostTobacco
Effect
Favorable
of
TPSAC
Studies
nUse
=nn5Supplement.
=
n=Menthol
=
23Also
6Adequate
1Adequate
Adequate
Suggests
n = Methodology
22
Methodology
Methodology
No Difference
nn=
n=in
=241711
Cessation
And,Difference
Initiation
No
PreMixed
Unfavorable
Pre-TPSAC
Source:
112
TPSAC
No
Results
Covance,
“Initiation”
n =nMenthol
n13
=Menthol
=
n210
=
6Inc
Post-TPSAC
Post-TPSAC
3Post-TPSAC
Studies
Effect
or Effect
nUsed
=nn4nFavorable
==Adequate
=2103Adequate
Adequate
Adequate
nMethodology
= Methodology
6Methodology
Methodologynnn===000
Research
Overall,
FDA
In
Cohort
….
-moving
113
“Menthol
TPSAC
thedraft
Authors
course
studies
across
there
on
Menthol
white
and
the
of
and
isthis
of
Initiation
reviewing
Topic
apaper,
adolescents
paucity
even
Report,
sequence
ofTPSAC
published
of
Initiation
of
the
March
Smoking”
data
that
and
evidence
Agreed
is
on
2011
young
May
is
associated
this
Needed
23,
related
that
adults
topic.
2011
Additional
with
to
A
should
inlack
itsTobacco
menthol
charge,
of
bedata
carried
cigarette
Induced
TPSAC
prevents
out that
Diseases
noted
availability.
further
follow
gaps
conclusions
in
participants
understanding
onfrom
the role
of
experimentation
menthol
of menthol
cigarettes
cigarettes
to initiation
and public
in the
to dependence.
initiation
health that
ofshould
smoking.
Thesebe
studies
addressed
wouldwith
provide
further
an research.
improved understanding of the risk for
The Weight
TPSAC
chemistry)
Literature
Reviews
Policy
These
114
that
statements
New
ofreviews
menthol
Scientific
selected
ofarticles
Evidence
n=8
n=7
studies
industry
studies
report
from
cigarettes
that
n=24
documents
Menthol
was
(epidemiology,
discuss
provide
Research
n=7 released
no are
Since
biomarkers,
additional
menthol
the TPSAC
have
topography,
moreReport
been
harmful
published
Does
toxicology,
support
Notsince
Support
than
– the
perception,
for Disproportionate
non-menthol
Surveythe
studies
hypothesis
Regulation
youth cigarettes
n=24 smoking) (initiation, cessation, dependence, consumer
With did
How
“Removal
TPSAC,
115
the March
Evidence
TPSAC
of menthol
2011
reach
So cigarettes
Clear
its Conclusion?
that from
Therethe
is No
marketplace
Difference,
would benefit public health in the United States.”
TPSAC’s
Mendez
“To
TPSAC
“.TPSAC
No
Only
116
calculations
gain
oneprovided
model
an
TPSAC
provided
Menthol
understanding
forinputs
estimate
Conclusions
specifications
the inputs
of
canthe
are
be
Were
quantitative
provided
for
tiedthe
Driven
to model
a specific
by
impact
parameters,
a Model
study
of menthol
That
including
Relied
cigarette
on
a central
Faulty
on public
orInputs
‘best’
health,
estimate
TPSAC
andturned
plausible
to thelower
results
andofupper
models
bounds.”
of smoking in the United States .”
Behavioral
Covance
Typical
Failure
Lack
Study
Conclusions
Source:
for
STUDY
117
Lorillard
ofwas
to
flaws
Covance
appropriate
generalizability
REPORT
evaluated
use
not
Studies
were
Inc.
valid
in
designed
methodology
FINAL
Market
not
Version
methodology
Relied
measures
statistical
supported
toAccess
on
measure
1.0of
by
rigor
December
study
by
TPSAC
Services
of effect
study
studies
endpoint
for
data
of
Inc.
20,menthol
Model
2010,
The
or failure
Role
Input
available
on of
smoking
to
Suffer
Menthol
explain
at www.fda.gov.
from
behaviors
rationale
Flavoring
Methodological
for
in measures
Smoking
Flaws
Initiation,
used
Cessation, and 116 other Smoking Behaviors: A Search and Methodological Evaluation of the Literature, Prepared
TPSAC
Uses
ALLTURS
Nonnemaker
TPSAC’s
Published
118
dataRelies
sole
from
inwas
data
2012
has
2010
basis
on
American
designed
and
not
Nonnemaker
with
referred
was
for
questionnaire
responded
an
different
a key
to
Legacy
unpublished
toevaluate
input
Davis
2010
toconclusions
Longitudinal
requests
are
to2009
the
for
the
not
study
Key
effect
Mendez
for
publicly
from
with
Input
description
of
Tobacco
Lorillard
anon-statistically
model
available
to
“truth
Mendez
Use
of
campaign”
todata
provide
Reduction
Model
setsignificant
the
on Study
smoking
underlying
results
(ALLTURS)
initiation,
data used
notinmenthol
his study
“We conducted
“The
Nonnemaker
Completed
119
study Wave
was
2010
Nonnemaker
secondary
conducted
1and
35,252
2012
analysis
in
2012
35,252
Falsely
83 2010
schools
Completed
ofImply
[ALLTURS],
in seven
thatWave
a Large
communities
a1-3
longitudinal
Data
16,396
Setand
16,392
Was
school-based
fiveUsed
Included
states.”
from(Nonnemaker
study
in
Thousands
Analysis
of 47,237
of
479
2012,
Subjects
middle
632abstract)
Experimented
school and high
withschool
Menthol
youth.”
161 223
(Nonnemaker
African Americans
2010) who experimented with Menthol 15 23
Nonnemaker
2010
OR
2012
Different
120
1.68
– rate
menthol
(1.00-2.82)
subsets
was
2010
experimenters
80%
ofand
data
not
greater
2012
statistically
wereReport
– used
OR
progressed
1.80
in
Dramatically
significant
2010
(1.02-3.16)
toand
established
2012
Different
statistically
studies
smoking
Results
with
significant
at
nofrom
aexplanation
rateSame
68% Data
greater
Setthan non-menthol experimenters
Unexplained
Nonnemaker
Some
These
121
smokers
differences
Anomalies
2012
arelikely
not
includes
inappropriately
accounted
explain
Exist
subjects
Between
why
for
eliminates
that
in
2012
any
Nonnemaker
were
results
group
one
excluded
group
became
2010
in
from
statistically
2010
anddenominator
2012
analysis
significant
of calculations
when 2010 results were not
Uses
Mendez
Proportion
Out
*Contrary
122
Source:
ofNonnemaker
100
Model
uses
to
2012
of
menthol
other
two
non-menthol
menthol
SGR
Prediction
reports
key
2010
experimenters,
and
rates
experimenters
progression
that
2011
of
experimenters
Excess
1NSDUH
in 4 93
experimenters
rate
Deaths
who
would
. ofwho
become
68%
Due
become
become
greater
tobecome
established
Availability
established
established
forestablished*
menthol
smokers
ofsmokers
Menthol
smokers
smokers
(93%)
(56%)
is as
Simply
a key NOT
input Credible
variable
Mendez
Cohort
100%
Experimenters
30%
30.0%
45%
13.5%
93%
Menthol
56%
Initiation
12.6%
Proportion
21.8%
55%
Non-menthol
16.5%
Counterfactual
9.2%
CF
16.7%
Ratio
7.5%
Mendes
1.68
Reported
123
Menthol
ofofInput
Model
the
Experimenter
Initiations
by
Rate
potential
of“Proportion
Initiations
Mendes
Experimenter
Initiations
Experimenters
Menthol
Non-Menthol
(age
W*E
Ym1-Yn
Initiation
Based
Experimenters
(Im)
18)on
among
Experimenters
W*E*K4
(Im1)
Im+In
(In)
of
rate
Nonnemaker
Menthol
W*E*(1-K4)
Experimenters
among
in
(age
Experimenters
Cohort
18)
(W)
Experimenters
Experimenters
that
Im1+In
2010
(E) become
that
(K4)
become
(1-K4)
established
that become
established
smokers
Established
smokers
(Ym)Smokers”
(Yn)
/ “Proportion of Non-menthol Experimenters that become Established Smokers” (K5=Ym/Yn)
Unrealistic
Difference
297,219
Basis
124
of of
TPSAC’s
in
the
Inputs
progression
327,565
Drive
conclusion:
excess
the
of TPSAC
menthol
deaths
“Menthol
Conclusion
experimenters
by 2050
cigarettes have
(93%)
an and
adverse
non-menthol
impact onexperimenters
public health (56%)
in the United
to established
States.”smoking accounts for 91% of excess deaths reported by Mendez
Mendez
Confidence
OR
Using
Model
For
125
=
every
1.80
the
3.16
Leads
Model
100
upper
(1.02-3.16)
in
interval
to
the
menthol
Leads
Impossible
confidence
model
is to
the
experimenters,
results
Impossible
range
Results
interval
inthat
menthol
of
Results
is 116
Nonnemaker
b edexperimenters
would
to include
progress
2012
the progressing
true
rate
to established
of
parameter
progression
to established
of
smoking
the
leads
timetosmoking
–impossible
i.e. the at
margin
aresults
rateof
3 times
error greater than non-menthol experimenters
TPSAC’s
A
Relied
Over
126
product
reliance
on Conclusion
aofsingle
aon
biased
a model
single
and
wasthat
flawed
conflicted
NOT
wasBased
study
notpanel
well
for
on Sound
inputs
understood
to
Science
their model
Anddate,
72%
Estimate
Black
Increased
Counterfeit
TPSAC
To
127
that
ofMarket
current
devoted
FDA
the
from
youth
cigarettes
FDA
will
has
Compass
Menthol
access
only
not
will
be significant
3with
published
Consider
out
Lexecon
Sales
unknown
of 231
Would
evaluations,
the
Report
pages
Countervailing
ingredients
Be and
Soldif
stated:
On
anyBlack
have
Effects
“FDA
Market
been
would
of conducted,
Disproportionate
need to of
assess
the Menthol
countervailing
the potential
Regulation
for
effects
contraband
asofThey
removal
menthol
are Required
of menthol
cigarettes
by cigarettes
Law
as required
frombythe
themarket
Act”
WeUnited
Further,
Law
market
Banning
illegal
—
128
Department
Report
Don’t
enforcement
activity.
cigarettes
the
allStates
Believe
ofcigarettes
illicit
theof
There
Virginia
Trade
are
[tobacco]
intelligence
Treasury
thenow
is
–FDA
Representative
or
already
State
greater
any
Report
will
trade
reports
type
Crime
aIgnore
has
than
sizeable
toofCongress,
been
have
Commission
cigarette
for
report
Many
cocaine,
black
linked
indicated
to
Major
favored
WTO,
2/4/2010
market
toheroin
(SJR
organized
Government
that
11/16/2010
for
by
21,
gangs
oracigarettes
2010)
illegal
large
crime
and
Bodies
portion
firearms.”
other
and
in the
violent
that
organized
ofUnited
U.S.
Have
crime,
smokers
States.”
Warned
crime
andrings
–poses
about
could
have
aContraband
significantly
serious
increasingly
riskRisks
to
increase
begun
our national
to
thefocus
existing
security.”
theirblack
efforts
market
on cigarette
for cigarettes
trafficking
and all
as the
a source
attendant
of revenue.
contraband
The trafficking
profit margins
and on
other
black
Going
Waiting
FDA-NIH
We
Lorillard
129
continue
Forward
on
isfunded
FDA
fully
to believe
prepared
announcement
PATH
that
Studies
tothe
respond
science
on
may
menthol
toprovide
does
any FDA
not
additional
provide
action on
ainformation
basis
menthol
for regulating
on menthol
menthol
over the
cigarettes
next several
differently
years from
– which
non-menthol
should show
cigarettes
no difference
While
Introduction
Agenda
Strategic
Regulatory
Bill
Legal
Financial
Additional
130
True
Update
Lorillard’s
Plan
–Guidance
Q&A
SVP,
Update
Bob
Ron
Update
R&D
All
Bannon
Fundamentals
Milstein
Neil
(Lorillard-Style)
Murray
Wilcox
– –Investor
EVP,
Kessler
–Clearly
SVP,
Legal
Relations
David
– Chief
Chairman,
Lead
&Taylor
General
The
Compliance
Industry,
–President
EVP,
Counsel
Officer
Finance
Regulation
& CEO
& CFO
And Litigation Can Be Concerns
LegalMilstein
Ron
June
131
27,
Update
2013EVP, Legal & External Affairs, General Counsel & Secretary
Lorillard
–History
Challenges
132
Successfully
ofLitigation
successfully
manageable
transitioned
managing
going
to new
forward
tobacco
nationallitigation
counsel (HHR) in 2012
Lorillard
Product
Class
Individual
Health-care
Kent
Other
FDA
133
filter
related
actions
litigation
liability
Litigation
reimbursement
litigation
(cont.)
Individual Cases
Traditional
134
individual cases West Virginia consolidated case Engle Progeny suits
Traditional
200
Individual
2003
27
135
cases
150
2004
100
pending
S&H
2005
Individual
50 0Cases
2006
against
2007
Cases
Lorillard
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Traditional
Evans
December
$35M
decision
Reversed
Liability
Upheld
Massachusetts
136
compensatory
v.compensatory
Massachusetts
Lorillard
claim
new
2010
Individual
trial
Company
limited
jury
(Superior
trial
verdict
/ $81M
damage
Lawsuits
for
court
onassessing
retrial
June
against
Court,
punitive
onaward
Supreme
$81M
(other
Supreme
Boston,
Lorillard
of
damages
punitive
negligence
$35M
11,MA)
its
2013
(plus
assessed
options
damages
Judicial
claims
interest)
Judicial
by
award
vacated)
jury
Courtfor
and
issued
Court
ordered
appellate
reconsideration or further appeal by
Traditional
Two
New
137
traditional
York California
Individual
individual
Lawsuits
trials scheduled for 2013
West
then
–entered
Lorillard
139
Only
Multi-phase
Virginia
remaining
May
should
2013
have
individual
count
on all
noinvolves
counts
follow-on
trial,(but
certain
trials
individual
with
low-tar
if cases
common
cigarettes
Appeal
necessary
by plaintiffs
issues proceeding
possible first, 600 individual cases consolidated for liability phase Only 31 cases involved claims against Lorillard Defense one) verdict
Engle
We
139
2013
4,520
2008
7,600
have
Cases
made progress reducing the number of Engle cases
EngletoCases
TRIAL
Trial
Defense
Plaintiff
Trials
Range
140
Verdicts
Concluded
ofRESULT
Verdict
Verdicts
Loss
(cont.)
on
9633
before
63
INDUSTRY
Plaintiff
13310 Verdict
$1,400-$70.9M
LORILLARD
28 5
$4,500-$33M
•–Engle
141
Four
Appeals
Duke/Walker
Douglas
To
Oral
Certiorari
date,
Cases
Engle
argument
$15,500
pending
(US
petition
(cont.)
trials
Supreme
(11th
setscheduled
in
paid
for
pending
Circuit)
FLJuly
by
Court)
and
Lorillard
12,
US
in Q3
2013
Supreme
2013
in Engle
Courts
progeny
over judgments
Engle Phase 1 findings
•Class
142
No active
Lorillard
Actions
issuits
not pending
a defendant
against
in “Lights”
Lorillardclass action cases
–•Health
143
DOJ
Last RICO
Company
details
Care expects
Reimbursement
suit
implementing
to spendJudge
Cases
approximately
Kessler’s $20M
order on
to comply
corrective
andadvertising
reserved into1Q
be 2013
addressed
accordingly
–•Kent
144
Allege
plants
Smoker
Manufactured
Claims
Smoking
60
pending
Filter
Worker
cigarette
usually
claims
and
suits
health
claims
between
involve
injury
not
from
filter
1952
mesothelioma
an asbestos
issue
from
and 1956
asbestos
exposure
in original
in the Kent
•–Kent
145
Verdicts
Settlement
Several
Damages
Filtertrials
in(cont.)
ranged
strategy
22scheduled
cases
from
established
tried
$140,000
for
since
2013
to
1991
tominimize
$2.25
(17 defense
million
economic
verdicts;
loss 5 plaintiff verdicts)
–•FDA
146
TPSAC
Graphic
DC appeal
Case
No
District
over;
conflicts
Warnings
by
industry
Court
FDA
ofsuit
interest
victory suit pending
•Summary
147
Engle
The
All
other
cases
Company
is company’s
cases
appear
isare
manageable
performing
declining,
greatest litigation
well
except
defending
Kent
expense
Filter
Engle
and cases
risk and the risk appears manageable
While
Strategic
Introduction
Agenda
Regulatory
Legal
Financial
Additional
Bob
Murray
Neil
Bill
Ron
David
148
All
True
Bannon
Milstein
Wilcox
Update
Taylor
Lorillard’s
Kessler
Plan
–Guidance
Q&A
SVP,
Update
––––Update
SVP,
Investor
EVP,
EVP,
–R&D
Fundamentals
Chairman,
(Lorillard-Style)
Chief
Legal
Finance
Relations
Compliance
&President
&
General
Clearly
CFO Counsel
&
Officer
Lead
CEOThe Industry, Regulation And Litigation Can Be Concerns
Financial
David
June
149
27,
Taylor
2013
Guidance
EVP, Finance
(Lorillard-Style)
and Planning & Chief Financial Officer
•Financial
150
Philosophy
Promotes
Recognize
Guidance
longer-term
the
– no
issues
explicit
(Lorillard-Style)
this
thinking
earnings
may create
andguidance
decision-making
Financial
Total
Units
-3.1%
401
billions
-4.1%
400
-1.7%
350
-1.5%
300
250
-3.5%
-3.8%
200
2003
Source:
*Source:
151
-3.2%
-8.6%
-2.3%
Q1
2004
Domestic
in
-5.0%
357
345
2013*
MSA,
MSA,
Guidance
293
CAGR
-4.9%
2005
-3.3%
Inc.
286
Industry
Inc.
2006
domestic
(Lorillard-Style)
Excel
2007
Shipments
retail
2008
shipment
database
2009data
2010 2011 2012 2013
Financial
Total
120
100
to
Volume
Indexed
2005
60
Lorillard
Source:
152
100
CAGR
2006
Domestic
MSA,
80
clearly
Rest
Guidance
2007
CAGR
of
Inc.
Industry
2008
outperforms
Industry
-4.7%
domestic
(Lorillard-Style)
2009
Shipments
2010
shipment
rest 2011
of +1.2%
industry
data
2012
Financial
Dividend
$2.50
$1.50
$1.73
$2.07
$2.20
Q3
$0.50
$1.23
Source:
153
2008
Annualized
$1.33
Lorillard
Q3
Policy
Guidance
2009–filings.
Dividend
Q3
70%—75%
(Lorillard-Style)
2010 Q1
Rate
of
2011
Earnings
Q1 2012 Q1 2013
Financial
•Capital
$100
$75
$50
$51
$56
2008
$0
$25
Source:
154
Capital
Other
Working
$74
$44
Capital
2009
–Needs
Lorillard
$40
Expenditures
blu
Guidance
capital
2010
Expenditures
eCigs
2011
filings.
investments
acquisition
(Lorillard-Style)
2012
~ $70—$80
to
$135
fund
million
million
growth
per
in year
2012
Financial
Cash
$Share
2008
~$815
Source:
155
3.0 Returned
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
Dividends
$1,586
$$910
2009
repurchases
Repurchases
million
400
313
Lorillard
Guidance
$2010
$631
716
remaining
to2011
$578
$filings.
Shareholders
continue
645
(Lorillard-Style)
2012
$723
under
to$807
be$7.3
current
attractive
Billion
program
uses
Totalof
(ascash
of 6/21/1
Financial
Target
Leverage
Not
EBITDA
change
Protect
•Currently
$4,000
$2,000
$2,500
$3,000
$3,500
$1,000
2009
$0
Weighted
Source:
156
likely
2010
is
Gross
$1,750
$750
in
investment
Lorillard
1.5x
Guidance
at
current
average
to
2011
1.8x
change
Debt
– 2.0x
2012
filings.
environment
interest
grade
(Lorillard-Style)
without
debt
2013
ratings
to
rate 4.95%
Financial
Potential
Mid-Single
environment
•free
*blu
157
Heightened
No
Share
Limited
AseCigs
cash
new
measured
repurchases
Long-Term
flow
Guidance
products
contribution
Digit
•promotion
No
•by
Limited
High-Single
new
earnings
•(Lorillard-Style)
from
Share
EPS
from
products
•contribution
free
Normal
Growth
repurchases
per
blu
cash
Digit
share
eCigs
• New
historical
Rate
flow
Low-Double
growth
from
from
incremental
from
Scenarios
share
•blu
pricing
Meaningful
•and
repurchases
Additional
eCigs
the
Digit
–products
•All
dividend
Normal
Delivering
contribution
leverage-driven
historical
yield.Double-Digit
pricing Shareholder Return*
Financial
•Some
158
Sharepositive
Recent
Partial
Obligations
Opportunities
repurchase
settlement
FDA
Guidance
for
authorization
factors
exist
theprogram
of
(Lorillard-Style)
Federal
for
NPM
in cost
place:
dispute
increased
for
Assessment
savings
Newport
provides
infollowing
blu
Non-Menthol
foreCigs
Tobacco
liquidity
$500
supply
Growers
million
and
Gold
chain
some
debt
will
continuing
issuance
end in 2014
earnings
in May
($118
2013
benefit
million in 2012)
Financial
Incentive
Annual
Long-term
Source:
159
plan
Lorillard
compensation
Guidance
incentives
balance
filings.
(Lorillard-Style)
between
arestructure
paidNewport
in common
alignsmarket
with
shares
goals
share
withand
3-year
operating
vesting
profit
– variable with EPS targets
All elements
Summary
Poised
New
e-cigarette
We
161
remain
products
to accelerate
growth
committed
are in place
earnings
to to
rewarding
continue
growth:shareholders
our history of
with
superior
cash returns
financial results
Murray S. Kessler
Chairman,
162
President and Chief Executive Officer
Lorillard’s
Conclusions
Incremental
The
Lorillard
163
right remains
management
ongoing
new products
committed
Strategic
team
and
isto
Plan
blu
inrewarding
place
eCigs
has resulted
toshould
handle
shareholders
inaccelerate
all
continued
potential
through
growth
outperformance
regulatory
returning
even further
and
its legal
significant
outcomes
free cash flow
164
Questions
Appendix
Regulation
Reconciliation
(Amounts
settlement
Year
Income
Reported
GAAP
1)
on
2)
restructuring
included
3)
Adjusted
165
Impact
Expenses
Lorillard’s
ended
results
Diluted
in
(Non-GAAP)
(GAAP)
of
A
in
expense
G
cost
December
incurred
RAI
RJRT
millions,
charges
Reconciliations
tobacco
include
ofEPS
ofReported
mark-to-market
results
sales
adjustments
included
Operating
on
inthe
except
settlement
31,
results
conjunction
7Lorillard’s
$1,892
$1,878
following:
0.01
2011
2012
(GAAP)
inper
$1,867
$1,369
cost
Income
to
Operating
$2.66
$2.81
share
expense
adjustments
pension
itsof
tobacco
with
to2011-2005
$2.63
$2.82
sales
Adjusted
data)
N/A
$1
the
included
accounting
E-Cigarette
(25)
settlement
N/A
$2
(Unaudited)
acquisition
on(Non-GAAP)
operating
(0.03)
Lorillard’s
in adjustments
cost
Segment
expense
N/A
ofof
income
blu
tobacco
sales
Results
eCigs
(8)
and6(0.01)
0.01 1-
Appendix
Regulation
Reconciliation
(Amounts
Quarter
Income
Reported
GAAP
payment
2013
of
1)
Government
administrative
Adjusted
166
Favorable
sales
Estimated
included
results
Diluted
(143)
Ended
as
disputes
(Non-GAAP)
(GAAP)
A
inG
a(cont.)
Case
millions,
impact
costs
result
Reconciliations
(0.23)
include
as
expenses
of
March
EPS
an
Reported
approved
judgment
results
toof
offset
of
-Operating
comply
31,
the
except
the
results
20$561
2013
settlement
following:
to
reduction
(GAAP)
0.03
by
included
tobacco
with
per
$438
the
$0.86
Operating
Income
- share
or
arbitration
$0.66
to
to
in
otherwise
settlement
$7
inAdjusted
data)
resolve
Lorillard’s
selling,
E-Cigarette
$72
(Unaudited)
panel
certain
resolve
general
expense
(Non-GAAP)
April
in March
Segment
MSA
the
and
15,
inU.S.
cost
2013
Results
MSA
Appendix
Regulation
2010
Proforma
Adjusted
Depreciation
Earnings
amortization
Fair
Long-term
Leverage
Estimated
Includes
167
value
2011
$500
before
operating
Ratios
(A/B)
A
based
of
2012
debt
debt,
G(cont.)
(B)
interest
and
Reconciliations
million
$1.0
interest,
net
2013—Q1
on
$amortization
1,769
1,760
income
2012
1.3
ofrate
debt
fair
1.6
$taxes,
$Adjusted
swap
2,595
1,904
value
offering
1.6
$2013—Q1
1,725
35
1.8
depreciation
(69)
$of
$37
3,111
1,922
operating
$interest
in
(95)
39
1,867
May,
39
$(111)
$3,101
1,922
39
$rate
and
2013.
income.
1,883
(101)
swap
$$3,601
1,922
$(101)
1,883
(A)( 2)
$ (1)
1,700
$ 1,883
$ 2,500
(1)$ 3,000 $ 3,000 $ 3,500
Appendix
Regulation
Reconciliation
(Amounts
settlement
Year
Gross
Reported
GAAP
1)
on
2)
restructuring
included
3)
Adjusted
168
Impact
Expenses
Lorillard’s
ended
Profit
results
in
(Non-GAAP)
(GAAP)
of
A
in
expense
G
cost
December
incurred
Income
(cont.)
RAI
RJRT
millions,
charges
Reconciliations
tobacco
include
ofofReported
mark-to-market
results
sales
adjustments
included
Net
on
inthe
except
settlement
31,
results
conjunction
7Lorillard’s
Income
$2,343
$2,382
following:
72012
2011
(GAAP)
5inper
0.01
$2,318
$1,745
cost
to
Operating
Diluted
$1,892
$1,878
share
expense
adjustments
pension
itsof
tobacco
with
to2011-2005
$1,867
$1,369
sales
Adjusted
data)
$1,116
$1,099
EPS
the
included
accounting
(25)
settlement
(Unaudited)
acquisition
$1,101
$799
on$2.81
$2.66
(Non-GAAP)
operating
(25)
Lorillard’s
$2.82
in$2.63
(15)
adjustments
cost
expense
of(0.03)
of
income
blu
tobacco
sales
Results
eCigs
(8)
and—
(8)6(5)
4 0.01
(0.01)
169
Lorillard