LEGAL PROCEEDINGS AND CONTINGENCIES	3 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2019
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 the Company's 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 was remanded to the Federal Court for further proceedings related to damages sought by Apotex. The Company and Apotex have settled the Apotex case, and the case was dismissed. The Australian government has intervened in this matter and is seeking maximum damages up to 449 million AUD ($319 million), plus interest, which would be split between the Company and Sanofi, for alleged losses experienced for paying a higher price for branded Plavix* during the period when the injunction was in place. The Company and Sanofi have disputed that the Australian government is entitled to any damages and the Australian government's claim is still pending and a trial was concluded in September 2017. The Company is expecting a decision in 2019. Sprycel - Europe In May 2013, Apotex, Actavis Group PTC ehf, Generics [UK] Limited (Mylan) and an unnamed company filed oppositions in the EPO seeking revocation of European Patent No. 1169038 (the ‘038 patent) covering dasatinib, the active ingredient in Sprycel. 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. In February 2017, the EPO Board of Appeal upheld the Opposition Division’s decision, and revoked the ‘038 patent. Orphan drug exclusivity and data exclusivity for Sprycel in the EU expired in November 2016. The EPO Board of Appeal’s decision does not affect the validity of the Company's other Sprycel patents within and outside Europe, including different patents that cover the monohydrate form of dasatinib and the use of dasatinib to treat CML. Additionally, in February 2017, the EPO Board of Appeal reversed and remanded an invalidity decision on European Patent No. 1610780 and its claim to the use of dasatinib to treat CML, which the EPO’s Opposition Division had revoked in October 2012. In December 2018, the EPO’s Opposition Division upheld the validity of the patent directed to the use of dasatinib to treat CML, which expires in 2024. The Company intends to take appropriate legal actions to protect Sprycel. Generics have been approved in certain EU markets. We may experience a decline in European revenues in the event that generic dasatinib product enters the market. Anti-PD-1 Antibody Patent Oppositions and Litigation In September 2015, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute (Dana-Farber) filed a complaint in Massachusetts federal court seeking to correct the inventorship on up to five related U.S. patents directed to methods of treating cancer using PD-1 and PD-L1 antibodies. Specifically, Dana-Farber is seeking to add two scientists as inventors to these patents. In October 2017, Pfizer was allowed to intervene in this case alleging that one of the scientists identified by Dana-Farber was employed by a company eventually acquired by Pfizer during the relevant period. In February 2019, the Company settled the lawsuit with Pfizer. A bench trial in the lawsuit with Dana-Farber began on February 4, 2019. A decision is expected in 2019. Eliquis Patent Litigation - U.S. In 2017, twenty-five generic companies sent the Company Paragraph-IV certification letters informing the Company that they had filed aNDAs seeking approval of generic versions of Eliquis. As a result, two Eliquis patents listed in the FDA Orange Book are being challenged: the composition of matter patent claiming apixaban specifically and a formulation patent. In April 2017, the Company, along with its partner Pfizer, initiated patent lawsuits under the Hatch-Waxman Act against all generic filers in federal district courts in Delaware and West Virginia. In August 2017, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office granted patent term restoration to the composition of matter patent, thereby restoring the term of the Eliquis composition of matter patent, which is the Company’s basis for projected LOE, from February 2023 to November 2026. The Company has settled lawsuits with a number of aNDA filers through March 2019. The settlements do not affect the Company’s projected LOE for Eliquis. A trial with the remaining aNDA filers is scheduled for October 2019 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. 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 the attorneys general of Hawaii and New Mexico relating to the sales and promotion of Plavix. 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. 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 approximately 2,000 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 majority of these cases have been brought by individuals who allege personal injury sustained after using Byetta, primarily pancreatic cancer, and, in some cases, claiming alleged wrongful death. The majority of cases are 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. In November 2017, the Ninth Circuit reversed the MDL summary judgment order and remanded the case to the MDL. In November 2018, the California Court of Appeal reversed the state court dismissal and the state court cases were remanded to the JCCP for further proceedings. 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. Abilify* The Company and 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 over 2,000 cases filed in state and federal courts and additional cases are pending in Canada. The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation consolidated the federal court cases for pretrial purposes in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida. On February 15, 2019, the Company and Otsuka entered into a master settlement agreement establishing a proposed settlement program to resolve all Abilify* compulsivity claims filed as of January 28, 2019 in the MDL as well as the various state courts, including California and New Jersey. Eliquis The Company and Pfizer are co-defendants in product liability litigation related to Eliquis. Plaintiffs assert claims, including claims for wrongful death, as a result of bleeding they allege was caused by their use of Eliquis. As of April 2019, no claims remain pending in the MDL in the U.S District Court for the Southern District of New York or in state court. One case remains pending in Canada. Over 200 cases have been dismissed with prejudice in the MDL. The claims of 23 plaintiffs were appealed to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals which, in March 2019, affirmed the MDL's dismissals. There were several additional appeals that were stayed pending the outcome of the Second Circuit's decision. These stays have been lifted. Onglyza* The Company and AstraZeneca are co-defendants in product liability litigation related to Onglyza. Plaintiffs assert claims, including claims for wrongful death, as a result of heart failure or other cardiovascular injuries they allege were caused by their use of Onglyza. As of March 2019, claims are pending in state and federal court on behalf of approximately 275 individuals who allege they ingested the product and suffered an injury. In February 2018, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ordered all federal cases to be transferred to an MDL in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky. A significant majority of the claims are pending in the MDL. As part of the Company’s global diabetes business divestiture, the Company sold Onglyza* to AstraZeneca in February 2014 and any potential liability with respect to Onglyza* is expected to be shared with AstraZeneca. 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 SEC of alleged FCPA violations in China in which the Company agreed to a payment of approximately $14.7 million in disgorgement, penalties and interest. All three of the lawsuits were dismissed. The Company received a notice of appeal as to one of the dismissed lawsuits and in March 2019, the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York affirmed the trial court's dismissal. This litigation is now concluded. SECURITIES LITIGATION Since February 2018, two separate putative class action complaints were filed in the U.S. District for the Northern District of California and in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against the Company, the Company’s Chief Executive Officer, Giovanni Caforio, the Company’s Chief Financial Officer, Charles A. Bancroft and certain former and current executives of the Company. The case in California has been voluntarily dismissed. The remaining complaint alleges violations of securities laws for the Company’s disclosures related to the CheckMate-026 clinical trial in lung cancer. A fully briefed motion to dismiss is pending before the court. The Company intends to defend itself vigorously in this litigation. OTHER LITIGATION Acquisition of Celgene Litigation Following the announcement of the Company's planned acquisition of Celgene, thirteen complaints were filed by Celgene shareholders in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York and the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware seeking to enjoin the Company's planned acquisition of Celgene. The complaints in these actions name as defendants Celgene and the members of Celgene's Board of Directors. Five of these complaints also name the Company and Burgundy Merger Sub, Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company that was formed solely for the purpose of completing the pending acquisition of Celgene and will be merged with and into Celgene upon the completion of the acquisition, as defendants. Of the complaints naming the Company as a defendant, four are styled as putative class actions. The plaintiffs allege violations of various federal securities laws and breaches of fiduciary duties in connection with the acquisition of Celgene by the Company. Two of these complaints were voluntarily dismissed in April 2019. Separately, a fourteenth complaint styled as a putative class action was filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware on behalf of the Company's shareholders naming members of the Company's Board of Directors as defendants. This complaint alleges that each of the members of the Company's Board of Directors breached his or her fiduciary duties to the Company and its shareholders by failing to disclose material information about the pending acquisition. The lawsuit was voluntarily dismissed in April 2019. The Company expects the remaining lawsuits to be dismissed shortly. Acquisition of Flexus Litigation In February 2015, the Company acquired Flexus including rights to its IDO-1 inhibitor. In September 2015, Incyte Corporation (“Incyte”) sued Flexus and Flexus's founders (“Flexus Defendants”) in the Superior Court of the State of Delaware. In its initial and subsequent amended complaints, Incyte alleged claims against the Flexus Defendants, among others, for the misappropriation of various trade secrets relating to the research and development of Incyte's IDO-1 inhibitor. In November 2018, following a two and a-half week trial on trade secrets, a jury in the Superior Court of Delaware returned a defense verdict on behalf of the Flexus Defendants. Incyte may appeal the decision. Average Manufacturer Price Litigation The Company is a defendant in a qui tam (whistleblower) lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, in which the U.S. Government declined to intervene. The complaint alleges that the Company inaccurately reported its average manufacturer prices to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services to lower what it owed. Similar claims have been filed against other companies. 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. 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 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 $65 million at March 31, 2019, 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 amount 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 the Company's 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 was remanded to the Federal Court for further proceedings related to damages sought by Apotex. The Company and Apotex have settled the Apotex case, and the case was dismissed. The Australian government has intervened in this matter and is seeking maximum damages up to 449 million AUD ($319 million), plus interest, which would be split between the Company and Sanofi, for alleged losses experienced for paying a higher price for branded Plavix* during the period when the injunction was in place. The Company and Sanofi have disputed that the Australian government is entitled to any damages and the Australian government's claim is still pending and a trial was concluded in September 2017. The Company is expecting a decision in 2019.

Sprycel - Europe

In May 2013, Apotex, Actavis Group PTC ehf, Generics [UK] Limited (Mylan) and an unnamed company filed oppositions in the EPO seeking revocation of European Patent No. 1169038 (the ‘038 patent) covering dasatinib, the active ingredient in Sprycel. 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. In February 2017, the EPO Board of Appeal upheld the Opposition Division’s decision, and revoked the ‘038 patent. Orphan drug exclusivity and data exclusivity for Sprycel in the EU expired in November 2016. The EPO Board of Appeal’s decision does not affect the validity of the Company's other Sprycel patents within and outside Europe, including different patents that cover the monohydrate form of dasatinib and the use of dasatinib to treat CML. Additionally, in February 2017, the EPO Board of Appeal reversed and remanded an invalidity decision on European Patent No. 1610780 and its claim to the use of dasatinib to treat CML, which the EPO’s Opposition Division had revoked in October 2012. In December 2018, the EPO’s Opposition Division upheld the validity of the patent directed to the use of dasatinib to treat CML, which expires in 2024. The Company intends to take appropriate legal actions to protect Sprycel. Generics have been approved in certain EU markets. We may experience a decline in European revenues in the event that generic dasatinib product enters the market.

Anti-PD-1 Antibody Patent Oppositions and Litigation

In September 2015, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute (Dana-Farber) filed a complaint in Massachusetts federal court seeking to correct the inventorship on up to five related U.S. patents directed to methods of treating cancer using PD-1 and PD-L1 antibodies. Specifically, Dana-Farber is seeking to add two scientists as inventors to these patents. In October 2017, Pfizer was allowed to intervene in this case alleging that one of the scientists identified by Dana-Farber was employed by a company eventually acquired by Pfizer during the relevant period. In February 2019, the Company settled the lawsuit with Pfizer. A bench trial in the lawsuit with Dana-Farber began on February 4, 2019. A decision is expected in 2019.

Eliquis Patent Litigation - U.S.

In 2017, twenty-five generic companies sent the Company Paragraph-IV certification letters informing the Company that they had filed aNDAs seeking approval of generic versions of Eliquis. As a result, two Eliquis patents listed in the FDA Orange Book are being challenged: the composition of matter patent claiming apixaban specifically and a formulation patent. In April 2017, the Company, along with its partner Pfizer, initiated patent lawsuits under the Hatch-Waxman Act against all generic filers in federal district courts in Delaware and West Virginia. In August 2017, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office granted patent term restoration to the composition of matter patent, thereby restoring the term of the Eliquis composition of matter patent, which is the Company’s basis for projected LOE, from February 2023 to November 2026. The Company has settled lawsuits with a number of aNDA filers through March 2019. The settlements do not affect the Company’s projected LOE for Eliquis. A trial with the remaining aNDA filers is scheduled for October 2019 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware.

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 the attorneys general of Hawaii and New Mexico relating to the sales and promotion of Plavix*.

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.

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 approximately 2,000 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 majority of these cases have been brought by individuals who allege personal injury sustained after using Byetta*, primarily pancreatic cancer, and, in some cases, claiming alleged wrongful death. The majority of cases are 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. In November 2017, the Ninth Circuit reversed the MDL summary judgment order and remanded the case to the MDL. In November 2018, the California Court of Appeal reversed the state court dismissal and the state court cases were remanded to the JCCP for further proceedings. 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.

Abilify*

The Company and 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 over 2,000 cases filed in state and federal courts and additional cases are pending in Canada. The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation consolidated the federal court cases for pretrial purposes in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida. On February 15, 2019, the Company and Otsuka entered into a master settlement agreement establishing a proposed settlement program to resolve all Abilify* compulsivity claims filed as of January 28, 2019 in the MDL as well as the various state courts, including California and New Jersey.

Eliquis

The Company and Pfizer are co-defendants in product liability litigation related to Eliquis. Plaintiffs assert claims, including claims for wrongful death, as a result of bleeding they allege was caused by their use of Eliquis. As of April 2019, no claims remain pending in the MDL in the U.S District Court for the Southern District of New York or in state court. One case remains pending in Canada. Over 200 cases have been dismissed with prejudice in the MDL. The claims of 23 plaintiffs were appealed to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals which, in March 2019, affirmed the MDL's dismissals. There were several additional appeals that were stayed pending the outcome of the Second Circuit's decision. These stays have been lifted.

Onglyza*

The Company and AstraZeneca are co-defendants in product liability litigation related to Onglyza*. Plaintiffs assert claims, including claims for wrongful death, as a result of heart failure or other cardiovascular injuries they allege were caused by their use of Onglyza*. As of March 2019, claims are pending in state and federal court on behalf of approximately 275 individuals who allege they ingested the product and suffered an injury. In February 2018, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ordered all federal cases to be transferred to an MDL in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky. A significant majority of the claims are pending in the MDL. As part of the Company’s global diabetes business divestiture, the Company sold Onglyza* to AstraZeneca in February 2014 and any potential liability with respect to Onglyza* is expected to be shared with AstraZeneca.

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 SEC of alleged FCPA violations in China in which the Company agreed to a payment of approximately $14.7 million in disgorgement, penalties and interest. All three of the lawsuits were dismissed. The Company received a notice of appeal as to one of the dismissed lawsuits and in March 2019, the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York affirmed the trial court's dismissal. This litigation is now concluded.

SECURITIES LITIGATION

Since February 2018, two separate putative class action complaints were filed in the U.S. District for the Northern District of California and in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against the Company, the Company’s Chief Executive Officer, Giovanni Caforio, the Company’s Chief Financial Officer, Charles A. Bancroft and certain former and current executives of the Company. The case in California has been voluntarily dismissed. The remaining complaint alleges violations of securities laws for the Company’s disclosures related to the CheckMate-026 clinical trial in lung cancer. A fully briefed motion to dismiss is pending before the court. The Company intends to defend itself vigorously in this litigation.

OTHER LITIGATION

Acquisition of Celgene Litigation

Following the announcement of the Company's planned acquisition of Celgene, thirteen complaints were filed by Celgene shareholders in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York and the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware seeking to enjoin the Company's planned acquisition of Celgene. The complaints in these actions name as defendants Celgene and the members of Celgene's Board of Directors. Five of these complaints also name the Company and Burgundy Merger Sub, Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company that was formed solely for the purpose of completing the pending acquisition of Celgene and will be merged with and into Celgene upon the completion of the acquisition, as defendants. Of the complaints naming the Company as a defendant, four are styled as putative class actions. The plaintiffs allege violations of various federal securities laws and breaches of fiduciary duties in connection with the acquisition of Celgene by the Company. Two of these complaints were voluntarily dismissed in April 2019.

Separately, a fourteenth complaint styled as a putative class action was filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware on behalf of the Company's shareholders naming members of the Company's Board of Directors as defendants. This complaint alleges that each of the members of the Company's Board of Directors breached his or her fiduciary duties to the Company and its shareholders by failing to disclose material information about the pending acquisition. The lawsuit was voluntarily dismissed in April 2019.

The Company expects the remaining lawsuits to be dismissed shortly.

Acquisition of Flexus Litigation

In February 2015, the Company acquired Flexus including rights to its IDO-1 inhibitor. In September 2015, Incyte Corporation (“Incyte”) sued Flexus and Flexus's founders (“Flexus Defendants”) in the Superior Court of the State of Delaware. In its initial and subsequent amended complaints, Incyte alleged claims against the Flexus Defendants, among others, for the misappropriation of various trade secrets relating to the research and development of Incyte's IDO-1 inhibitor. In November 2018, following a two and a-half week trial on trade secrets, a jury in the Superior Court of Delaware returned a defense verdict on behalf of the Flexus Defendants. Incyte may appeal the decision.

Average Manufacturer Price Litigation

The Company is a defendant in a qui tam (whistleblower) lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, in which the U.S. Government declined to intervene. The complaint alleges that the Company inaccurately reported its average manufacturer prices to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services to lower what it owed. Similar claims have been filed against other companies.

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.

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 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 $65 million at March 31, 2019, 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 amount includes the estimated costs for any additional probable loss associated with the previously disclosed North Brunswick Township High School Remediation Site.