Contingencies	3 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2020
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Contingencies	Contingencies Given the uncertain nature of litigation generally, the Company is not able, in all cases, to estimate the amount or range of loss that could result from an unfavorable outcome of the litigation to which the Company is a party. In accordance with U.S. GAAP, the Company establishes accruals to the extent probable future losses are estimable (in the case of environmental matters, without considering possible third-party recoveries). With respect to putative class action lawsuits in the United States and certain of the Canadian lawsuits described below relating to product liability matters, the Company is unable to estimate a range of reasonably possible losses for the following reasons: (i) all or certain of the proceedings are in early stages; (ii) the Company has not received and reviewed complete information regarding all or certain of the plaintiffs and their medical conditions; and/or (iii) there are significant factual issues to be resolved. In addition, there is uncertainty as to the likelihood of a class being certified or the ultimate size of the class. With respect to the civil investigative demand (“CID”) served by the Department of Justice, discussed below, the Company is unable to estimate a range of reasonably possible losses for the following reasons: (i) all or certain of the proceedings are in early stages; and/or (ii) there are significant factual and legal issues to be resolved. In view of the uncertainties discussed below, the Company could incur charges in excess of any currently established accruals and, to the extent available, liability insurance. In the opinion of management, any such future charges, individually or in the aggregate, could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s consolidated results of operations and consolidated cash flows. Product Liability Matters The Company believes that certain settlements and judgments, as well as legal defense costs, relating to product liability matters are, or may be, covered in whole or in part under its product liability insurance policies. In some circumstances, the Company is covered under indemnification obligations from other parties, which if disputed, the Company intends to vigorously contest. Amounts recovered under the Company’s product liability insurance policies or indemnification arrangements may be less than the stated coverage limits or less than otherwise expected and may not be adequate to cover damages and/or costs relating to claims. In addition, there is no guarantee that insurers or other parties will pay claims or that coverage or indemnity will be otherwise available. Hernia Product Claims As of December 31, 2020, the Company is defending approximately 23,260 product liability claims involving the Company’s line of hernia repair devices (collectively, the “Hernia Product Claims”). The majority of those claims are currently pending in a coordinated proceeding in Rhode Island State Court, but claims are also pending in other state and/or federal court jurisdictions. In addition, those claims include multiple putative class actions in Canada. Generally, the Hernia Product Claims seek damages for personal injury allegedly resulting from use of the products. From time to time, the Company engages in resolution discussions with plaintiffs’ law firms regarding certain of the Hernia Product Claims, but the Company also intends to vigorously defend Hernia Product Claims that do not settle, including through litigation. The Company expects additional trials of Hernia Product Claims to take place over the next 12 months. In August 2018, a hernia multi-district litigation (“MDL”) was ordered to be established in the Southern District of Ohio. Trials are scheduled throughout fiscal year 2021 in various state and/or federal courts, with the first trial currently scheduled for April 2021 in the Rhode Island State Court. A second trial is scheduled for April 2021 in the MDL. The Company cannot give any assurances that the resolution of the Hernia Product Claims that have not settled, including asserted and unasserted claims and the putative class action lawsuits, will not have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business, results of operations, financial condition and/or liquidity. Women’s Health Product Claims As of December 31, 2020, the Company is defending approximately 465 product liability claims involving the Company’s line of pelvic mesh devices. The majority of those claims are currently pending in various federal court jurisdictions, and a coordinated proceeding in New Jersey State Court, but claims are also pending in other state court jurisdictions. In addition, those claims include putative class actions filed in the United States. Not included in the figures above are approximately 980 filed and unfiled claims that have been asserted or threatened against the Company but lack sufficient information to determine whether a pelvic mesh device of the Company is actually at issue. The claims identified above also include products manufactured by both the Company and two subsidiaries of Medtronic plc (as successor in interest to Covidien plc) (“Medtronic”), each a supplier of the Company. Medtronic has an obligation to defend and indemnify the Company with respect to any product defect liability relating to products its subsidiaries had manufactured. In July 2015, the Company reached an agreement with Medtronic in which Medtronic agreed to take responsibility for pursuing settlement of certain of the Women’s Health Product Claims that relate to products distributed by the Company under supply agreements with Medtronic. In June 2017, the Company amended the agreement with Medtronic to transfer responsibility for settlement of additional Women’s Health Product Claims to Medtronic on terms similar to the July 2015 agreement, including with respect to the obligation to make payments to Medtronic toward these potential settlements. As of December 31, 2020, the Company has paid Medtronic $148 million towards these potential settlements. The Company also may, in its sole discretion, transfer responsibility for settlement of additional Women’s Health Product Claims to Medtronic on similar terms. The agreements do not resolve the dispute between the Company and Medtronic with respect to Women’s Health Product Claims that do not settle, if any. The foregoing lawsuits, unfiled claims, putative class actions, and other claims, together with claims that have settled or are the subject of agreements or agreements in principle to settle, are referred to collectively as the “Women’s Health Product Claims.” The Women’s Health Product Claims generally seek damages for personal injury allegedly resulting from use of the products. As of December 31, 2020, the Company has reached agreements or agreements in principle with various plaintiffs’ law firms to settle their respective inventories of cases totaling approximately 15,280 of the Women’s Health Product Claims. The Company believes that these Women’s Health Product Claims are not the subject of Medtronic’s indemnification obligation. These settlement agreements and agreements in principle include unfiled and previously unknown claims held by various plaintiffs’ law firms, which are not included in the approximate number of lawsuits set forth in the first paragraph of this section. Each agreement is subject to certain conditions, including requirements for participation in the proposed settlements by a certain minimum number of plaintiffs. The Company continues to engage in discussions with other plaintiffs’ law firms regarding potential resolution of unsettled Women’s Health Product Claims, which may include additional inventory settlements. Starting in 2014 in the MDL, the court entered certain pre-trial orders requiring trial work up and remand of a significant number of Women’s Health Product Claims, including an order entered in the MDL on January 30, 2018, that requires the work up and remand of all remaining unsettled cases (the “WHP Pre-Trial Orders”). The WHP Pre-Trial Orders may result in material additional costs or trial verdicts in future periods in defending Women’s Health Product Claims. Trials are anticipated throughout 2021 in state and federal courts. A trial in the New Jersey coordinated proceeding began in March 2018, and in April 2018 a jury entered a verdict against the Company in the total amount of $68 million ($33 million compensatory; $35 million punitive). The Company is in the process of appealing that verdict and a hearing before the appellate court was held on January 25, 2021. The Company expects additional trials of Women’s Health Product Claims to take place over the next 12 months, which may potentially include consolidated trials. During the course of engaging in settlement discussions with plaintiffs’ law firms, the Company has learned, and may in future periods learn, additional information regarding these and other unfiled claims, or other lawsuits, which could materially impact the Company’s estimate of the number of claims or lawsuits against the Company. Filter Product Claims As of December 31, 2020, the Company is defending approximately 520 product liability claims involving the Company’s line of inferior vena cava filters (collectively, the “Filter Product Claims”). The majority of those claims were previously pending in an MDL in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona, but those MDL claims either have been, or are in the process of being, remanded to various federal jurisdictions. Filter Product Claims are also pending in various state court jurisdictions, including a coordinated proceeding in Arizona State Court. In addition, those claims include putative class actions filed in the United States and Canada. The Filter Product Claims generally seek damages for personal injury allegedly resulting from use of the products. The Company has limited information regarding the nature and quantity of certain of the Filter Product Claims. The Company continues to receive claims and lawsuits and may in future periods learn additional information regarding other unfiled or unknown claims, or other lawsuits, which could materially impact the Company’s estimate of the number of claims or lawsuits against the Company. On May 31, 2019, the MDL Court ceased accepting direct filings or transfers into the Filter Product Claims MDL and, as noted above, remands for non-settled cases have begun and are expected to continue over the next three months. Federal and state court trials are scheduled throughout fiscal year 2021. As of December 31, 2020, the Company entered into settlement agreements and/or settlement agreements in principle for approximately 9,280 cases. On March 30, 2018, a jury in the first MDL trial found the Company liable for negligent failure to warn and entered a verdict in favor of plaintiffs. The jury found the Company was not liable for (a) strict liability design defect; (b) strict liability failure to warn; and (c) negligent design. In August 2020, the Ninth Circuit affirmed that verdict on appeal. On June 1, 2018, a jury in the second MDL trial unanimously found in favor of the Company on all claims. On August 17, 2018, the Court entered summary judgment in favor of the Company on all claims in the third MDL trial. On October 5, 2018, a jury in the fourth MDL trial unanimously found in favor of the Company on all claims. The Company expects additional trials of Filter Product Claims may take place over the next 12 months. In most product liability litigations (like those described above), plaintiffs allege a wide variety of claims, ranging from allegations of serious injury caused by the products to efforts to obtain compensation notwithstanding the absence of any injury. In many of these cases, the Company has not yet received and reviewed complete information regarding the plaintiffs and their medical conditions and, consequently, is unable to fully evaluate the claims. The Company expects that it will receive and review additional information regarding any remaining unsettled product liability matters. In connection with the settlement of a prior litigation with certain of the Company's insurance carriers, an agreement with the Company's insurance carriers was reached to reimburse the Company for certain future costs incurred in connection with Filter Product Claims up to an agreed amount. For certain product liability claims or lawsuits, the Company does not maintain or has limited remaining insurance coverage. Other Legal Matters The Company is a potentially responsible party to a number of federal administrative proceedings in the United States brought under the Comprehensive Environment Response, Compensation and Liability Act, also known as “Superfund,” and similar state laws. The affected sites are in varying stages of development. In some instances, the remedy has been completed, while in others, environmental studies are underway or commencing. For several sites, there are other potentially responsible parties that may be jointly or severally liable to pay all or part of cleanup costs. While it is not feasible to predict the outcome of these proceedings, based upon the Company’s experience, current information and applicable law, the Company does not expect these proceedings to have a material adverse effect on its financial condition and/or liquidity. On February 27, 2020, a putative class action captioned Kabak v. Becton, Dickinson and Company, et al., Civ. No. 2:20-cv-02155 (SRC) (CLW), was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey against the Company and certain of its officers. The complaint, which purports to be brought on behalf of all persons (other than defendants) who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's common stock from November 5, 2019 through February 5, 2020, asserts claims for purported violations of Sections 10 and 20 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and seeks, among other things, damages and costs. The complaint alleges that defendants concealed material information regarding AlarisTM infusion pumps, including that (1) certain pumps exhibited software errors, (2) the Company was investing in remediation efforts as opposed to other enhancements and (3) the Company was thus reasonably likely to recall certain pumps and/or experience regulatory delays. These alleged omissions, the complaint asserts, rendered certain public statements about the Company’s business, operations and prospects false or misleading, causing investors to purchase stock at an inflated price. The plaintiff filed a motion to amend the complaint to add certain additional factual allegations on January 14, 2021. The Company believes the claims are without merit and intends to vigorously defend this action. On November 2, 2020, a civil action captioned Jankowski v. Forlenza, et al., Civ. No. 2:20-cv-15474, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey by a shareholder, Ronald Jankowski, derivatively on behalf of the Company, against its individual directors and certain of its officers. The complaint seeks recovery for breach of fiduciary duties by directors and various officers; violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and insider trading. In general, the complaint alleges, among other things, that various directors and/or officers (1) caused the Company to issue purportedly misleading statements and SEC filings regarding AlarisTM infusion pumps (2) issued a misleading proxy statement (3) engaged in improper insider trading and (4) caused or contributed to various violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, including sections 10(b), 14(a) and 21D. The complaint seeks damages, including restitution and disgorgement of profits, and an injunction requiring the Company to undertake remedial measures with respect to certain corporate governance and internal procedures. The Company believes these claims are without merit and intends to vigorously defend this action. Consistent with New Jersey law, this action will be stayed pending a formal response by a special committee of the Board of Directors to the shareholder’s presuit demand for an investigation of his claims. On January 24, 2021, a civil action captioned Schranz v. Polen, et al., Civ. No 2:21-cv-01081, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey by a shareholder, Jeff Schranz, derivatively on behalf of the Company. The Complaint largely advances claims, and seeks recovery of damages and other relief, similar to those set forth in the Jankowski action. In April 2019, the Department of Justice served the Company and CareFusion with CIDs seeking information regarding certain of CareFusion’s contracts with the Department of Veteran’s Affairs for certain products, including AlarisTM and PyxisTM devices, in connection with a civil investigation of possible violations of the False Claims Act, and the government recently expanded the investigation to include several additional contracts. The government has made several requests for documents and interviews or depositions of Company personnel. The Company is cooperating with the government and responding to these requests. The Company cannot predict the outcome of these matters, nor can it predict whether any outcome will have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business, results of operations, financial condition and/or liquidity. Accordingly, the Company has made no provisions for these other legal matters in its consolidated results of operations. The Company is also involved both as a plaintiff and a defendant in other legal proceedings and claims that arise in the ordinary course of business. The Company believes that it has meritorious defenses to these suits pending against the Company and is engaged in a vigorous defense of each of these matters. Litigation Accruals The Company regularly monitors and evaluates the status of product liability and other legal matters, and may, from time-to-time, engage in settlement and mediation discussions taking into consideration developments in the matters and the risks and uncertainties surrounding litigation. These discussions could result in settlements of one or more of these claims at any time. Accruals for the Company's product liability claims which are discussed above, as well as the related legal defense costs, amounted to approximately $2.4 billion at December 31, 2020 and $2.5 billion at September 30, 2020. These accruals, which are generally long-term in nature, are largely recorded within Deferred Income Taxes and Other Liabilities on the Company's condensed consolidated balance sheets. As of December 31, 2020 and September 30, 2020, the Company had $198 million and $92 million, respectively, in qualified settlement funds (“QSFs”), subject to certain settlement conditions, for certain product liability matters. Payments to QSFs are recorded as a component of Restricted cash. The Company's expected recoveries related to product liability claims and related legal defense costs were approximately $111 million and $139 million at December 31, 2020 and September 30, 2020, respectively. A substantial amount of these expected recoveries at December 31, 2020 and September 30, 2020 related to the Company’s agreements with Medtronic related to certain Women’s Health Product Claims. The expected recoveries at December 31, 2020 related to the indemnification obligation are not in dispute with respect to claims that Medtronic settles pursuant to the agreements.

Given the uncertain nature of litigation generally, the Company is not able, in all cases, to estimate the amount or range of loss that could result from an unfavorable outcome of the litigation to which the Company is a party. In accordance with U.S. GAAP, the Company establishes accruals to the extent probable future losses are estimable (in the case of environmental matters, without considering possible third-party recoveries). With respect to putative class action lawsuits in the United States and certain of the Canadian lawsuits described below relating to product liability matters, the Company is unable to estimate a range of reasonably possible losses for the following reasons: (i) all or certain of the proceedings are in early stages; (ii) the Company has not received and reviewed complete information regarding all or certain of the plaintiffs and their medical conditions; and/or (iii) there are significant factual issues to be resolved. In addition, there is uncertainty as to the likelihood of a class being certified or the ultimate size of the class. With respect to the civil investigative demand (“CID”) served by the Department of Justice, discussed below, the Company is unable to estimate a range of reasonably possible losses for the following reasons: (i) all or certain of the proceedings are in early stages; and/or (ii) there are significant factual and legal issues to be resolved.

In view of the uncertainties discussed below, the Company could incur charges in excess of any currently established accruals and, to the extent available, liability insurance. In the opinion of management, any such future charges, individually or in the aggregate, could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s consolidated results of operations and consolidated cash flows.

The Company believes that certain settlements and judgments, as well as legal defense costs, relating to product liability matters are, or may be, covered in whole or in part under its product liability insurance policies. In some circumstances, the Company is covered under indemnification obligations from other parties, which if disputed, the Company intends to vigorously contest. Amounts recovered under the Company’s product liability insurance policies or indemnification arrangements may be less than the stated coverage limits or less than otherwise expected and may not be adequate to cover damages and/or costs relating to claims. In addition, there is no guarantee that insurers or other parties will pay claims or that coverage or indemnity will be otherwise available.

As of December 31, 2020, the Company is defending approximately 23,260 product liability claims involving the Company’s line of hernia repair devices (collectively, the “Hernia Product Claims”). The majority of those claims are currently pending in a coordinated proceeding in Rhode Island State Court, but claims are also pending in other state and/or federal court jurisdictions. In addition, those claims include multiple putative class actions in Canada. Generally, the Hernia Product Claims seek damages for personal injury allegedly resulting from use of the products. From time to time, the Company engages in resolution discussions with plaintiffs’ law firms regarding certain of the Hernia Product Claims, but the Company also intends to vigorously defend Hernia Product Claims that do not settle, including through litigation. The Company expects additional trials of Hernia Product Claims to take place over the next 12 months. In August 2018, a hernia multi-district litigation (“MDL”) was ordered to be established in the Southern District of Ohio. Trials are scheduled throughout fiscal year 2021 in various state and/or federal courts, with the first trial currently scheduled for April 2021 in the Rhode Island State Court. A second trial is scheduled for April 2021 in the MDL. The Company cannot give any assurances that the resolution of the

As of December 31, 2020, the Company is defending approximately 465 product liability claims involving the Company’s line of pelvic mesh devices. The majority of those claims are currently pending in various federal court jurisdictions, and a coordinated proceeding in New Jersey State Court, but claims are also pending in other state court jurisdictions. In addition, those claims include putative class actions filed in the United States. Not included in the figures above are approximately 980 filed and unfiled claims that have been asserted or threatened against the Company but lack sufficient information to determine whether a pelvic mesh device of the Company is actually at issue.

The claims identified above also include products manufactured by both the Company and two subsidiaries of Medtronic plc (as successor in interest to Covidien plc) (“Medtronic”), each a supplier of the Company. Medtronic has an obligation to defend and indemnify the Company with respect to any product defect liability relating to products its subsidiaries had manufactured. In July 2015, the Company reached an agreement with Medtronic in which Medtronic agreed to take responsibility for pursuing settlement of certain of the Women’s Health Product Claims that relate to products distributed by the Company under supply agreements with Medtronic. In June 2017, the Company amended the agreement with Medtronic to transfer responsibility for settlement of additional Women’s Health Product Claims to Medtronic on terms similar to the July 2015 agreement, including with respect to the obligation to make payments to Medtronic toward these potential settlements. As of December 31, 2020, the Company has paid Medtronic $148 million towards these potential settlements. The Company also may, in its sole discretion, transfer responsibility for settlement of additional Women’s Health Product Claims to Medtronic on similar terms. The agreements do not resolve the dispute between the Company and Medtronic with respect to Women’s Health Product Claims that do not settle, if any. The foregoing lawsuits, unfiled claims, putative class actions, and other claims, together with claims that have settled or are the subject of agreements or agreements in principle to settle, are referred to collectively as the “Women’s Health Product Claims.” The Women’s Health Product Claims generally seek damages for personal injury allegedly resulting from use of the products.

As of December 31, 2020, the Company has reached agreements or agreements in principle with various plaintiffs’ law firms to settle their respective inventories of cases totaling approximately 15,280 of the Women’s Health Product Claims. The Company believes that these Women’s Health Product Claims are not the subject of Medtronic’s indemnification obligation. These settlement agreements and agreements in principle include unfiled and previously unknown claims held by various plaintiffs’ law firms, which are not included in the approximate number of lawsuits set forth in the first paragraph of this section. Each agreement is subject to certain conditions, including requirements for participation in the proposed settlements by a certain minimum number of plaintiffs. The Company continues to engage in discussions with other plaintiffs’ law firms regarding potential resolution of unsettled Women’s Health Product Claims, which may include additional inventory settlements.

Starting in 2014 in the MDL, the court entered certain pre-trial orders requiring trial work up and remand of a significant number of Women’s Health Product Claims, including an order entered in the MDL on January 30, 2018, that requires the work up and remand of all remaining unsettled cases (the “WHP Pre-Trial Orders”). The WHP Pre-Trial Orders may result in material additional costs or trial verdicts in future periods in defending Women’s Health Product Claims. Trials are anticipated throughout 2021 in state and federal courts. A trial in the New Jersey coordinated proceeding began in March 2018, and in April 2018 a jury entered a verdict against the Company in the total amount of $68 million ($33 million compensatory; $35 million punitive). The Company is in the process of appealing that verdict and a hearing before the appellate court was held on January 25, 2021. The Company expects additional trials of Women’s Health Product Claims to take place over the next 12 months, which may potentially include consolidated trials.

As of December 31, 2020, the Company is defending approximately 520 product liability claims involving the Company’s line of inferior vena cava filters (collectively, the “Filter Product Claims”). The majority of those claims were previously pending in an MDL in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona, but those MDL claims either have been, or are in the process of being, remanded to various federal jurisdictions. Filter Product Claims are also pending in various state court jurisdictions, including a coordinated proceeding in Arizona State Court. In addition, those claims include putative class actions filed in the United States and Canada. The Filter Product Claims generally seek damages for personal injury allegedly resulting from use of the products. The Company has limited information regarding the nature and quantity of certain of the

Filter Product Claims. The Company continues to receive claims and lawsuits and may in future periods learn additional information regarding other unfiled or unknown claims, or other lawsuits, which could materially impact the Company’s estimate of the number of claims or lawsuits against the Company. On May 31, 2019, the MDL Court ceased accepting direct filings or transfers into the Filter Product Claims MDL and, as noted above, remands for non-settled cases have begun and are expected to continue over the next three months. Federal and state court trials are scheduled throughout fiscal year 2021. As of December 31, 2020, the Company entered into settlement agreements and/or settlement agreements in principle for approximately 9,280 cases. On March 30, 2018, a jury in the first MDL trial found the Company liable for negligent failure to warn and entered a verdict in favor of plaintiffs. The jury found the Company was not liable for (a) strict liability design defect; (b) strict liability failure to warn; and (c) negligent design. In August 2020, the Ninth Circuit affirmed that verdict on appeal. On June 1, 2018, a jury in the second MDL trial unanimously found in favor of the Company on all claims. On August 17, 2018, the Court entered summary judgment in favor of the Company on all claims in the third MDL trial. On October 5, 2018, a jury in the fourth MDL trial unanimously found in favor of the Company on all claims. The Company expects additional trials of Filter Product Claims may take place over the next 12 months.

In most product liability litigations (like those described above), plaintiffs allege a wide variety of claims, ranging from allegations of serious injury caused by the products to efforts to obtain compensation notwithstanding the absence of any injury. In many of these cases, the Company has not yet received and reviewed complete information regarding the plaintiffs and their medical conditions and, consequently, is unable to fully evaluate the claims. The Company expects that it will receive and review additional information regarding any remaining unsettled product liability matters.

In connection with the settlement of a prior litigation with certain of the Company's insurance carriers, an agreement with the Company's insurance carriers was reached to reimburse the Company for certain future costs incurred in connection with Filter Product Claims up to an agreed amount. For certain product liability claims or lawsuits, the Company does not maintain or has limited remaining insurance coverage.

The Company is a potentially responsible party to a number of federal administrative proceedings in the United States brought under the Comprehensive Environment Response, Compensation and Liability Act, also known as “Superfund,” and similar state laws. The affected sites are in varying stages of development. In some instances, the remedy has been completed, while in others, environmental studies are underway or commencing. For several sites, there are other potentially responsible parties that may be jointly or severally liable to pay all or part of cleanup costs. While it is not feasible to predict the outcome of these proceedings, based upon the Company’s experience, current information and applicable law, the Company does not expect these proceedings to have a material adverse effect on its financial condition and/or liquidity.

On February 27, 2020, a putative class action captioned Kabak v. Becton, Dickinson and Company, et al., Civ. No. 2:20-cv-02155 (SRC) (CLW), was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey against the Company and certain of its officers. The complaint, which purports to be brought on behalf of all persons (other than defendants) who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's common stock from November 5, 2019 through February 5, 2020, asserts claims for purported violations of Sections 10 and 20 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and seeks, among other things, damages and costs. The complaint alleges that defendants concealed material information regarding AlarisTM infusion pumps, including that (1) certain pumps exhibited software errors, (2) the Company was investing in remediation efforts as opposed to other enhancements and (3) the Company was thus reasonably likely to recall certain pumps and/or experience regulatory delays. These alleged omissions, the complaint asserts, rendered certain public statements about the Company’s business, operations and prospects false or misleading, causing investors to purchase stock at an inflated price. The plaintiff filed a motion to amend the complaint to add certain additional factual allegations on January 14, 2021. The Company believes the claims are without merit and intends to vigorously defend this action.

On November 2, 2020, a civil action captioned Jankowski v. Forlenza, et al., Civ. No. 2:20-cv-15474, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey by a shareholder, Ronald Jankowski, derivatively on behalf of the Company, against its individual directors and certain of its officers. The complaint seeks recovery for breach of fiduciary duties by directors and various officers; violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and insider trading. In general, the complaint alleges, among other things, that various directors and/or officers (1) caused the Company to issue purportedly misleading statements and SEC filings regarding AlarisTM infusion pumps (2) issued a misleading proxy statement (3) engaged in improper insider trading and (4) caused or contributed to various violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, including sections 10(b), 14(a) and 21D. The complaint seeks damages, including restitution and disgorgement of profits, and an injunction requiring the Company to undertake remedial measures with respect to certain corporate governance and internal procedures. The Company believes these claims are without merit and intends to vigorously defend this action. Consistent with New Jersey law, this action will be stayed pending a formal response by a special committee of the Board of Directors to the shareholder’s presuit demand for an investigation of his claims.

On January 24, 2021, a civil action captioned Schranz v. Polen, et al., Civ. No 2:21-cv-01081, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey by a shareholder, Jeff Schranz, derivatively on behalf of the Company. The Complaint largely advances claims, and seeks recovery of damages and other relief, similar to those set forth in the Jankowski action.

In April 2019, the Department of Justice served the Company and CareFusion with CIDs seeking information regarding certain of CareFusion’s contracts with the Department of Veteran’s Affairs for certain products, including AlarisTM and PyxisTM devices, in connection with a civil investigation of possible violations of the False Claims Act, and the government recently expanded the investigation to include several additional contracts. The government has made several requests for documents and interviews or depositions of Company personnel. The Company is cooperating with the government and responding to these requests.

The Company regularly monitors and evaluates the status of product liability and other legal matters, and may, from time-to-time, engage in settlement and mediation discussions taking into consideration developments in the matters and the risks and uncertainties surrounding litigation. These discussions could result in settlements of one or more of these claims at any time.