LEGAL PROCEEDINGS AND CONTINGENCIES	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2016
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Legal Proceedings and Contingencies [Text Block]	LEGAL PROCEEDINGS AND CONTINGENCIES The Company and certain of its subsidiaries are involved in various lawsuits, claims, government investigations and other legal proceedings that arise in the ordinary course of business. These claims or proceedings can involve various types of parties, including governments, competitors, customers, suppliers, service providers, licensees, employees, or shareholders, among others. The resolution of these matters often develops over a long period of time and expectations can change as a result of new findings, rulings, appeals or settlement arrangements. The Company recognizes accruals for such contingencies when it is probable that a liability will be incurred and the amount of loss can be reasonably estimated. These matters involve patent infringement, antitrust, securities, pricing, sales and marketing practices, environmental, commercial, contractual rights, licensing obligations, health and safety matters, consumer fraud, employment matters, product liability and insurance coverage. Legal proceedings that are material or that the Company believes could become material are described below. Although the Company believes it has substantial defenses in these matters, there can be no assurance that there will not be an increase in the scope of pending matters or that any future lawsuits, claims, government investigations or other legal proceedings will not be material. Unless otherwise noted, the Company is unable to assess the outcome of the respective litigation nor is it able to provide an estimated range of potential loss. Furthermore, failure to enforce our patent rights would likely result in substantial decreases in the respective product revenues from generic competition. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY Plavix* — Australia As previously disclosed, Sanofi was notified that, in August 2007, GenRx Proprietary Limited (GenRx) obtained regulatory approval of an application for clopidogrel bisulfate 75mg tablets in Australia. GenRx, formerly a subsidiary of Apotex Inc. (Apotex), has since changed its name to Apotex. In August 2007, Apotex filed an application in the Federal Court of Australia (the Federal Court) seeking revocation of Sanofi’s Australian Patent No. 597784 (Case No. NSD 1639 of 2007). Sanofi filed counterclaims of infringement and sought an injunction. On September 21, 2007, the Federal Court granted Sanofi’s injunction. A subsidiary of the Company was subsequently added as a party to the proceedings. In February 2008, a second company, Spirit Pharmaceuticals Pty. Ltd., also filed a revocation suit against the same patent. This case was consolidated with the Apotex case, and a trial occurred in April 2008. On August 12, 2008, the Federal Court of Australia held that claims of Patent No. 597784 covering clopidogrel bisulfate, hydrochloride, hydrobromide, and taurocholate salts were valid. The Federal Court also held that the process claims, pharmaceutical composition claims, and claim directed to clopidogrel and its pharmaceutically acceptable salts were invalid. The Company and Sanofi filed notices of appeal in the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia (Full Court) appealing the holding of invalidity of the claim covering clopidogrel and its pharmaceutically acceptable salts, process claims, and pharmaceutical composition claims which have stayed the Federal Court’s ruling. Apotex filed a notice of appeal appealing the holding of validity of the clopidogrel bisulfate, hydrochloride, hydrobromide, and taurocholate claims. A hearing on the appeals occurred in February 2009. On September 29, 2009, the Full Court held all of the claims of Patent No. 597784 invalid. In November 2009, the Company and Sanofi applied to the High Court of Australia (High Court) for special leave to appeal the judgment of the Full Court. In March 2010, the High Court denied the Company and Sanofi’s request to hear the appeal of the Full Court decision. The case has been remanded to the Federal Court for further proceedings related to damages sought by Apotex. The Australian government has intervened in this matter and is also seeking damages for alleged losses experienced during the period when the injunction was in place. The Company and Apotex have settled the Apotex case, and the case has been dismissed. The Australian government's claim is still pending and a trial has been scheduled for August 2017. It is not possible at this time to predict the outcome of the Australian government’s claim or its impact on the Company. Sprycel - European Union In May 2013, Apotex, Actavis Group PTC ehf, Generics [UK] Limited (Mylan) and an unnamed company filed oppositions in the European Patent Office (EPO) seeking revocation of European Patent No. 1169038 (the ‘038 patent) covering dasatinib, the active ingredient in Sprycel. The ‘038 patent is scheduled to expire in April 2020 (excluding potential term extensions). On January 20, 2016, the Opposition Division of the EPO revoked the ‘038 patent. In May 2016, the Company appealed the EPO’s decision to the EPO Board of Appeal. The ‘038 patent will remain in force pending the outcome of our appeal of the EPO’s decision, and we intend to pursue legal options to defend our intellectual property rights from any future infringement. Orphan drug exclusivity and data exclusivity for Sprycel in the EU expire in November 2016. The decision does not affect the validity of our other Sprycel patents within and outside Europe, including a different patent that covers the monohydrate form of dasatinib. In the U.S., the Company entered into a settlement agreement with Apotex in 2013 regarding a patent infringement suit whereby Apotex can launch its generic dasatinib monohydrate product in September 2024, or earlier in certain circumstances. Anti-PD-1 Antibody Patent Oppositions and Litigation There are a number of ongoing patent litigations against Merck & Co., Inc. (Merck) around the world with respect to patents directed to 1) methods of treating cancer using a PD-1 antibody (the Honjo patent filing) and 2) a class of anti-PD-1 antibodies (the Korman patent filing). Europe Under our alliance with Ono Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. (Ono), BMS has exclusive rights to the Honjo patent filing, including European patent (EP 1 537 878) (the ’878 patent). In 2011, Merck filed an opposition in the European Patent Office (EPO) seeking revocation of the ‘878 patent. In June 2014, the Opposition Division of the EPO maintained the validity of the claims in the ’878 patent. Merck has appealed this decision. In May 2014, Merck filed a lawsuit in the United Kingdom (UK) seeking revocation of the UK national version of the ’878 patent. In July 2014, BMS and Ono sued Merck for patent infringement. A trial was held in the UK in July 2015. In October 2015, the court issued its judgment, finding the ’878 patent valid and infringed. Merck has appealed this judgment and the appeal hearing is scheduled for March 2017. In February 2015, Merck filed a lawsuit in the Netherlands seeking revocation of the Dutch national version of the ’878 patent, and BMS and Ono subsequently sued Merck for patent infringement. A trial regarding the validity and infringement of the ’878 patent was held in January 2016. In June 2016, the Dutch court found the ’878 patent valid and infringed by Merck. Merck has appealed the judgment. In December 2015, BMS and Ono filed lawsuits with respect to national versions of the ‘878 patent in several other European countries, including France, Germany, Ireland, Spain and Switzerland. BMS and Ono can file patent infringement actions against Merck in other national courts in Europe at or around the time Merck launches Keytruda. If any of the above-mentioned national courts determine Merck infringes a valid claim in the ’878 patent, BMS and Ono may be entitled to monetary damages, including royalties on future sales of Keytruda. BMS and Ono are not seeking an injunction to prevent Merck from marketing Keytruda* in these litigations unless an appropriate financial remedy cannot be agreed upon or awarded by the court. In April 2014, Merck and three other companies opposed a European patent (EP 2 161 336) (the ’336 patent) which is based on the Korman patent filing. In February 2015, BMS and Ono submitted a request to amend the claims of the ’336 patent. Oral proceedings before the Opposition Division of the EPO occurred in July 2016. The Opposition Division of the EPO maintained the validity of the ’336 patent claims. United States In September 2014, BMS and Ono filed a lawsuit in the United States alleging that Merck’s marketing of Keytruda* infringes U.S. Patent No. 8,728,474 (the ’474 patent) which is based on the Honjo patent filing. The trial in this matter is currently scheduled to begin in April 2017. In June and July 2015, BMS and Ono filed lawsuits in the United States alleging that Merck’s marketing of Keytruda* infringes U.S. Patent Nos. 9,067,999 (the ‘999 patent) and 9,073,994 (the ‘994 patent), respectively, which are based on the Honjo patent filing. In these lawsuits, BMS and Ono are not seeking to prevent or stop the marketing of Keytruda* in the United States unless an appropriate financial remedy cannot be agreed upon or awarded by the court. In September 2015, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute (Dana-Farber) filed a complaint in Massachusetts federal court seeking to correct the inventorship of five related U.S. patents based on the Honjo patent filing. Specifically, Dana-Farber is seeking to add two scientists as inventors to these patents. Three of these patents (the ‘474, ‘999, and ‘994 patents) are currently subject to patent infringement proceedings filed by BMS and Ono against Merck in Delaware federal court, as specified above. In April 2016, Merck filed an action in New Jersey federal court seeking a declaratory judgment that U.S. Patent Nos. 8,777,105 (the '105 patent) and 9,084,776 (the '776 patent), which are based on the Korman patent filing, are invalid and not infringed by Keytruda. In July 2016, Merck filed Petitions for Inter Partes Review of the ‘999 and ‘994 patents. The petitions request that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) review the validity of the ‘999 and ‘994 patents. The Company intends to respond and oppose the petitions by October 2016. Rest of World In September 2014, Merck filed a lawsuit in Australia seeking the revocation of Australian Patent No. 2011203119, which is based on the Korman patent filing. In March 2015, BMS and Ono countersued Merck for patent infringement. Ono and BMS have similar and other patents and applications pending in the United States and other countries. A trial has been scheduled for September 2017. PRICING, SALES AND PROMOTIONAL PRACTICES LITIGATION Plavix State Attorneys General Lawsuits The Company and certain affiliates of Sanofi are defendants in consumer protection and/or false advertising actions brought by several states relating to the sales and promotion of Plavix. It is not possible at this time to reasonably assess the outcome of these lawsuits or their potential impact on the Company. PRODUCT LIABILITY LITIGATION The Company is a party to various product liability lawsuits. Plaintiffs in these cases seek damages and other relief on various grounds for alleged personal injury and economic loss. As previously disclosed, in addition to lawsuits, the Company also faces unfiled claims involving its products. Plavix As previously disclosed, the Company and certain affiliates of Sanofi are defendants in a number of individual lawsuits in various state and federal courts claiming personal injury damage allegedly sustained after using Plavix. Currently, over 5,300 claims involving injury plaintiffs as well as claims by spouses and/or other beneficiaries, are filed in state and federal courts in various states including California, New Jersey, Delaware and New York. In February 2013, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation granted the Company and Sanofi’s motion to establish a multi-district litigation (MDL) to coordinate Federal pretrial proceedings in Plavix product liability and related cases in New Jersey Federal Court. It is not possible at this time to reasonably assess the outcome of these lawsuits or the potential impact on the Company. Byetta* Amylin, a former subsidiary of the Company, and Lilly are co-defendants in product liability litigation related to Byetta. To date, there are over 500 separate lawsuits pending on behalf of almost 2,300 active plaintiffs (including pending settlements), which include injury plaintiffs as well as claims by spouses and/or other beneficiaries, in various courts in the U.S. The Company has agreed in principle to resolve over 137 of these claims. The majority of these cases have been brought by individuals who allege personal injury sustained after using Byetta, primarily pancreatic cancer and pancreatitis, and, in some cases, claiming alleged wrongful death. The majority of cases were pending in Federal Court in San Diego in an MDL or in a coordinated proceeding in California Superior Court in Los Angeles (JCCP). In November 2015, the defendants' motion for summary judgment based on federal preemption was granted in both the MDL and the JCCP. The plaintiffs in the MDL have appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and the JCCP plaintiffs have appealed to the California Court of Appeal. Amylin has product liability insurance covering a substantial number of claims involving Byetta* and any additional liability to Amylin with respect to Byetta* is expected to be shared between the Company and AstraZeneca. It is not possible to reasonably predict the outcome of any lawsuit, claim or proceeding or the potential impact on the Company. Abilify* The Company and Otsuka Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd. (Otsuka) are co-defendants in product liability litigation related to Abilify. Plaintiffs allege Abilify caused them to engage in compulsive gambling and other impulse control disorders. There have been approximately 60 cases filed in state and federal courts and two cases are pending in Canada. The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation has consolidated the federal court cases for pretrial purposes in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida. SHAREHOLDER DERIVATIVE LITIGATION Since December 2015, three shareholder derivative lawsuits were filed in New York state court against certain officers and directors of the Company. The plaintiffs allege, among other things, breaches of fiduciary duty surrounding the Company’s previously disclosed October 2015 civil settlement with the Securities and Exchange Commission of alleged Foreign Corrupt Practices Act violations in China in which the Company agreed to a payment of approximately $14.7 million in disgorgement, penalties and interest. In May 2016, the Company filed motions to dismiss two of the shareholder derivative lawsuits. GOVERNMENT INVESTIGATIONS Like other pharmaceutical companies, the Company and certain of its subsidiaries are subject to extensive regulation by national, state and local government agencies in the U.S. and other countries in which BMS operates. As a result, the Company, from time to time, is subject to various governmental inquiries and investigations. It is possible that criminal charges, substantial fines and/or civil penalties, could result from government investigations. The most significant investigations conducted by government agencies, of which the Company is aware, are listed below. Abilify* State Attorneys General Investigation In March 2009, the Company received a letter from the Delaware Attorney General’s Office advising of a multi-state coalition (Coalition) investigating whether certain Abilify* marketing practices violated those respective states’ consumer protection statutes. The Company and the Executive Committee of the Coalition have reached a settlement in principle in this matter, which remains subject to approval by each individual state and the District of Columbia in the Coalition. ENVIRONMENTAL PROCEEDINGS As previously reported, the Company is a party to several environmental proceedings and other matters, and is responsible under various state, federal and foreign laws, including the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA), for certain costs of investigating and/or remediating contamination resulting from past industrial activity at the Company’s current or former sites or at waste disposal or reprocessing facilities operated by third parties. CERCLA Matters With respect to CERCLA matters for which the Company is responsible under various state, federal and foreign laws, the Company typically estimates potential costs based on information obtained from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, or counterpart state or foreign agency and/or studies prepared by independent consultants, including the total estimated costs for the site and the expected cost-sharing, if any, with other “potentially responsible parties,” and the Company accrues liabilities when they are probable and reasonably estimable. The Company estimated its share of future costs for these sites to be $61 million at September 30, 2016, which represents the sum of best estimates or, where no best estimate can reasonably be made, estimates of the minimal probable amount among a range of such costs (without taking into account any potential recoveries from other parties). The $61 million includes the estimated costs for any additional probable loss associated with the previously disclosed North Brunswick Township High School Remediation Site.

LEGAL PROCEEDINGS AND CONTINGENCIES

The Company and certain of its subsidiaries are involved in various lawsuits, claims, government investigations and other legal proceedings that arise in the ordinary course of business. These claims or proceedings can involve various types of parties, including governments, competitors, customers, suppliers, service providers, licensees, employees, or shareholders, among others. The resolution of these matters often develops over a long period of time and expectations can change as a result of new findings, rulings, appeals or settlement arrangements. The Company recognizes accruals for such contingencies when it is probable that a liability will be incurred and the amount of loss can be reasonably estimated. These matters involve patent infringement, antitrust, securities, pricing, sales and marketing practices, environmental, commercial, contractual rights, licensing obligations, health and safety matters, consumer fraud, employment matters, product liability and insurance coverage. Legal proceedings that are material or that the Company believes could become material are described below.

Although the Company believes it has substantial defenses in these matters, there can be no assurance that there will not be an increase in the scope of pending matters or that any future lawsuits, claims, government investigations or other legal proceedings will not be material. Unless otherwise noted, the Company is unable to assess the outcome of the respective litigation nor is it able to provide an estimated range of potential loss. Furthermore, failure to enforce our patent rights would likely result in substantial decreases in the respective product revenues from generic competition.

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY

Plavix* — Australia

As previously disclosed, Sanofi was notified that, in August 2007, GenRx Proprietary Limited (GenRx) obtained regulatory approval of an application for clopidogrel bisulfate 75mg tablets in Australia. GenRx, formerly a subsidiary of Apotex Inc. (Apotex), has since changed its name to Apotex. In August 2007, Apotex filed an application in the Federal Court of Australia (the Federal Court) seeking revocation of Sanofi’s Australian Patent No. 597784 (Case No. NSD 1639 of 2007). Sanofi filed counterclaims of infringement and sought an injunction. On September 21, 2007, the Federal Court granted Sanofi’s injunction. A subsidiary of the Company was subsequently added as a party to the proceedings. In February 2008, a second company, Spirit Pharmaceuticals Pty. Ltd., also filed a revocation suit against the same patent. This case was consolidated with the Apotex case, and a trial occurred in April 2008. On August 12, 2008, the Federal Court of Australia held that claims of Patent No. 597784 covering clopidogrel bisulfate, hydrochloride, hydrobromide, and taurocholate salts were valid. The Federal Court also held that the process claims, pharmaceutical composition claims, and claim directed to clopidogrel and its pharmaceutically acceptable salts were invalid. The Company and Sanofi filed notices of appeal in the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia (Full Court) appealing the holding of invalidity of the claim covering clopidogrel and its pharmaceutically acceptable salts, process claims, and pharmaceutical composition claims which have stayed the Federal Court’s ruling. Apotex filed a notice of appeal appealing the holding of validity of the clopidogrel bisulfate, hydrochloride, hydrobromide, and taurocholate claims. A hearing on the appeals occurred in February 2009. On September 29, 2009, the Full Court held all of the claims of Patent No. 597784 invalid. In November 2009, the Company and Sanofi applied to the High Court of Australia (High Court) for special leave to appeal the judgment of the Full Court. In March 2010, the High Court denied the Company and Sanofi’s request to hear the appeal of the Full Court decision. The case has been remanded to the Federal Court for further proceedings related to damages sought by Apotex. The Australian government has intervened in this matter and is also seeking damages for alleged losses experienced during the period when the injunction was in place. The Company and Apotex have settled the Apotex case, and the case has been dismissed. The Australian government's claim is still pending and a trial has been scheduled for August 2017. It is not possible at this time to predict the outcome of the Australian government’s claim or its impact on the Company.

Sprycel - European Union

In May 2013, Apotex, Actavis Group PTC ehf, Generics [UK] Limited (Mylan) and an unnamed company filed oppositions in the European Patent Office (EPO) seeking revocation of European Patent No. 1169038 (the ‘038 patent) covering dasatinib, the active ingredient in Sprycel. The ‘038 patent is scheduled to expire in April 2020 (excluding potential term extensions). On January 20, 2016, the Opposition Division of the EPO revoked the ‘038 patent. In May 2016, the Company appealed the EPO’s decision to the EPO Board of Appeal. The ‘038 patent will remain in force pending the outcome of our appeal of the EPO’s decision, and we intend to pursue legal options to defend our intellectual property rights from any future infringement. Orphan drug exclusivity and data exclusivity for Sprycel in the EU expire in November 2016. The decision does not affect the validity of our other Sprycel patents within and outside Europe, including a different patent that covers the monohydrate form of dasatinib. In the U.S., the Company entered into a settlement agreement with Apotex in 2013 regarding a patent infringement suit whereby Apotex can launch its generic dasatinib monohydrate product in September 2024, or earlier in certain circumstances.

Anti-PD-1 Antibody Patent Oppositions and Litigation

There are a number of ongoing patent litigations against Merck & Co., Inc. (Merck) around the world with respect to patents directed to 1) methods of treating cancer using a PD-1 antibody (the Honjo patent filing) and 2) a class of anti-PD-1 antibodies (the Korman patent filing).

Europe

Under our alliance with Ono Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. (Ono), BMS has exclusive rights to the Honjo patent filing, including European patent (EP 1 537 878) (the ’878 patent). In 2011, Merck filed an opposition in the European Patent Office (EPO) seeking revocation of the ‘878 patent. In June 2014, the Opposition Division of the EPO maintained the validity of the claims in the ’878 patent. Merck has appealed this decision.

In May 2014, Merck filed a lawsuit in the United Kingdom (UK) seeking revocation of the UK national version of the ’878 patent. In July 2014, BMS and Ono sued Merck for patent infringement. A trial was held in the UK in July 2015. In October 2015, the court issued its judgment, finding the ’878 patent valid and infringed. Merck has appealed this judgment and the appeal hearing is scheduled for March 2017.

In February 2015, Merck filed a lawsuit in the Netherlands seeking revocation of the Dutch national version of the ’878 patent, and BMS and Ono subsequently sued Merck for patent infringement. A trial regarding the validity and infringement of the ’878 patent was held in January 2016. In June 2016, the Dutch court found the ’878 patent valid and infringed by Merck. Merck has appealed the judgment.

In December 2015, BMS and Ono filed lawsuits with respect to national versions of the ‘878 patent in several other European countries, including France, Germany, Ireland, Spain and Switzerland. BMS and Ono can file patent infringement actions against Merck in other national courts in Europe at or around the time Merck launches Keytruda*. If any of the above-mentioned national courts determine Merck infringes a valid claim in the ’878 patent, BMS and Ono may be entitled to monetary damages, including royalties on future sales of Keytruda*. BMS and Ono are not seeking an injunction to prevent Merck from marketing Keytruda* in these litigations unless an appropriate financial remedy cannot be agreed upon or awarded by the court.

In April 2014, Merck and three other companies opposed a European patent (EP 2 161 336) (the ’336 patent) which is based on the Korman patent filing. In February 2015, BMS and Ono submitted a request to amend the claims of the ’336 patent. Oral proceedings before the Opposition Division of the EPO occurred in July 2016. The Opposition Division of the EPO maintained the validity of the ’336 patent claims.

United States

In September 2014, BMS and Ono filed a lawsuit in the United States alleging that Merck’s marketing of Keytruda* infringes U.S. Patent No. 8,728,474 (the ’474 patent) which is based on the Honjo patent filing. The trial in this matter is currently scheduled to begin in April 2017. In June and July 2015, BMS and Ono filed lawsuits in the United States alleging that Merck’s marketing of Keytruda* infringes U.S. Patent Nos. 9,067,999 (the ‘999 patent) and 9,073,994 (the ‘994 patent), respectively, which are based on the Honjo patent filing. In these lawsuits, BMS and Ono are not seeking to prevent or stop the marketing of Keytruda* in the United States unless an appropriate financial remedy cannot be agreed upon or awarded by the court.

In September 2015, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute (Dana-Farber) filed a complaint in Massachusetts federal court seeking to correct the inventorship of five related U.S. patents based on the Honjo patent filing. Specifically, Dana-Farber is seeking to add two scientists as inventors to these patents. Three of these patents (the ‘474, ‘999, and ‘994 patents) are currently subject to patent infringement proceedings filed by BMS and Ono against Merck in Delaware federal court, as specified above.

In April 2016, Merck filed an action in New Jersey federal court seeking a declaratory judgment that U.S. Patent Nos. 8,777,105 (the '105 patent) and 9,084,776 (the '776 patent), which are based on the Korman patent filing, are invalid and not infringed by Keytruda*.

In July 2016, Merck filed Petitions for Inter Partes Review of the ‘999 and ‘994 patents. The petitions request that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) review the validity of the ‘999 and ‘994 patents. The Company intends to respond and oppose the petitions by October 2016.

Rest of World

In September 2014, Merck filed a lawsuit in Australia seeking the revocation of Australian Patent No. 2011203119, which is based on the Korman patent filing. In March 2015, BMS and Ono countersued Merck for patent infringement. Ono and BMS have similar and other patents and applications pending in the United States and other countries. A trial has been scheduled for September 2017.

PRICING, SALES AND PROMOTIONAL PRACTICES LITIGATION

Plavix* State Attorneys General Lawsuits

The Company and certain affiliates of Sanofi are defendants in consumer protection and/or false advertising actions brought by several states relating to the sales and promotion of Plavix*. It is not possible at this time to reasonably assess the outcome of these lawsuits or their potential impact on the Company.

PRODUCT LIABILITY LITIGATION

The Company is a party to various product liability lawsuits. Plaintiffs in these cases seek damages and other relief on various grounds for alleged personal injury and economic loss. As previously disclosed, in addition to lawsuits, the Company also faces unfiled claims involving its products.

Plavix*

As previously disclosed, the Company and certain affiliates of Sanofi are defendants in a number of individual lawsuits in various state and federal courts claiming personal injury damage allegedly sustained after using Plavix*. Currently, over 5,300 claims involving injury plaintiffs as well as claims by spouses and/or other beneficiaries, are filed in state and federal courts in various states including California, New Jersey, Delaware and New York. In February 2013, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation granted the Company and Sanofi’s motion to establish a multi-district litigation (MDL) to coordinate Federal pretrial proceedings in Plavix* product liability and related cases in New Jersey Federal Court. It is not possible at this time to reasonably assess the outcome of these lawsuits or the potential impact on the Company.

Byetta*

Amylin, a former subsidiary of the Company, and Lilly are co-defendants in product liability litigation related to Byetta*. To date, there are over 500 separate lawsuits pending on behalf of almost 2,300 active plaintiffs (including pending settlements), which include injury plaintiffs as well as claims by spouses and/or other beneficiaries, in various courts in the U.S. The Company has agreed in principle to resolve over 137 of these claims. The majority of these cases have been brought by individuals who allege personal injury sustained after using Byetta*, primarily pancreatic cancer and pancreatitis, and, in some cases, claiming alleged wrongful death. The majority of cases were pending in Federal Court in San Diego in an MDL or in a coordinated proceeding in California Superior Court in Los Angeles (JCCP). In November 2015, the defendants' motion for summary judgment based on federal preemption was granted in both the MDL and the JCCP. The plaintiffs in the MDL have appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and the JCCP plaintiffs have appealed to the California Court of Appeal. Amylin has product liability insurance covering a substantial number of claims involving Byetta* and any additional liability to Amylin with respect to Byetta* is expected to be shared between the Company and AstraZeneca. It is not possible to reasonably predict the outcome of any lawsuit, claim or proceeding or the potential impact on the Company.

Abilify*

The Company and Otsuka Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd. (Otsuka) are co-defendants in product liability litigation related to Abilify. Plaintiffs allege Abilify caused them to engage in compulsive gambling and other impulse control disorders. There have been approximately 60 cases filed in state and federal courts and two cases are pending in Canada. The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation has consolidated the federal court cases for pretrial purposes in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida.

SHAREHOLDER DERIVATIVE LITIGATION

Since December 2015, three shareholder derivative lawsuits were filed in New York state court against certain officers and directors of the Company. The plaintiffs allege, among other things, breaches of fiduciary duty surrounding the Company’s previously disclosed October 2015 civil settlement with the Securities and Exchange Commission of alleged Foreign Corrupt Practices Act violations in China in which the Company agreed to a payment of approximately $14.7 million in disgorgement, penalties and interest. In May 2016, the Company filed motions to dismiss two of the shareholder derivative lawsuits.

GOVERNMENT INVESTIGATIONS

Like other pharmaceutical companies, the Company and certain of its subsidiaries are subject to extensive regulation by national, state and local government agencies in the U.S. and other countries in which BMS operates. As a result, the Company, from time to time, is subject to various governmental inquiries and investigations. It is possible that criminal charges, substantial fines and/or civil penalties, could result from government investigations. The most significant investigations conducted by government agencies, of which the Company is aware, are listed below.

Abilify* State Attorneys General Investigation

In March 2009, the Company received a letter from the Delaware Attorney General’s Office advising of a multi-state coalition (Coalition) investigating whether certain Abilify* marketing practices violated those respective states’ consumer protection statutes. The Company and the Executive Committee of the Coalition have reached a settlement in principle in this matter, which remains subject to approval by each individual state and the District of Columbia in the Coalition.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROCEEDINGS

As previously reported, the Company is a party to several environmental proceedings and other matters, and is responsible under various state, federal and foreign laws, including the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA), for certain costs of investigating and/or remediating contamination resulting from past industrial activity at the Company’s current or former sites or at waste disposal or reprocessing facilities operated by third parties.

CERCLA Matters

With respect to CERCLA matters for which the Company is responsible under various state, federal and foreign laws, the Company typically estimates potential costs based on information obtained from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, or counterpart state or foreign agency and/or studies prepared by independent consultants, including the total estimated costs for the site and the expected cost-sharing, if any, with other “potentially responsible parties,” and the Company accrues liabilities when they are probable and reasonably estimable. The Company estimated its share of future costs for these sites to be $61 million at September 30, 2016, which represents the sum of best estimates or, where no best estimate can reasonably be made, estimates of the minimal probable amount among a range of such costs (without taking into account any potential recoveries from other parties). The $61 million includes the estimated costs for any additional probable loss associated with the previously disclosed North Brunswick Township High School Remediation Site.