LEGAL PROCEEDINGS AND CONTINGENCIES	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2020
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Legal Proceedings and Contingencies [Text Block]	LEGAL PROCEEDINGS AND CONTINGENCIES BMS 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. These matters may 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, 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. Legal proceedings that are significant or that BMS believes could become significant or material are described below. While BMS does not believe that any of these matters, except as otherwise specifically noted below, will have a material adverse effect on its financial position or liquidity as BMS believes it has substantial defenses in the matters, the outcomes of BMS’s legal proceedings and other contingencies are inherently unpredictable and subject to significant uncertainties. There can be no assurance that there will not be an increase in the scope of one or more of these pending matters or any other or future lawsuits, claims, government investigations or other legal proceedings will not be material to BMS’s financial position, results of operations or cash flows for a particular period. Furthermore, failure to enforce BMS’s patent rights would likely result in substantial decreases in the respective product revenues from generic competition. Unless otherwise noted, BMS is unable to assess the outcome of the respective matters nor is it able to estimate the possible loss or range of losses that could potentially result for such matters. Contingency accruals are recognized when it is probable that a liability will be incurred and the amount of the related loss can be reasonably estimated. Developments in legal proceedings and other matters that could cause changes in the amounts previously accrued are evaluated each reporting period. For a discussion of BMS’s tax contingencies, see “—Note 7. Income Taxes”. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY Anti-PD-1 Antibody Litigation In September 2015, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute (“Dana-Farber”) filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts seeking to correct the inventorship on up to six 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, BMS settled the lawsuit with Pfizer. A bench trial in the lawsuit with Dana-Farber took place in February 2019. In May 2019, the Court issued an opinion ruling that the two scientists should be added as inventors to the patents. The decision was appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and the Federal Circuit affirmed the District Court opinion. BMS is considering its appeal options. In June 2019, Dana-Farber filed a new lawsuit in the District of Massachusetts against BMS seeking damages as a result of the Court’s decision adding the scientists as inventors. CAR T On October 18, 2017, the day on which the FDA approved Kite Pharma, Inc.’s (“Kite”) Yescarta* product, Juno, along with Sloan Kettering Institute for Cancer Research (“SKI”), filed a complaint against Kite in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The complaint alleged that Yescarta* infringes certain claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,446,190 (“the ’190 Patent”) concerning CAR T cell technologies. Kite filed an answer and counterclaims asserting non-infringement and invalidity of the ’190 Patent. In December 2019, following an eight-day trial, the jury rejected Kite’s defenses, finding that Kite willfully infringed the ’190 Patent and awarding to Juno and SKI a reasonable royalty consisting of a $585 million upfront payment and a 27.6% running royalty on Kite’s sales of Yescarta* through the expiration of the ’190 Patent in August 2024. In January 2020, Kite renewed its previous motion for judgment as a matter of law and also moved for a new trial, and Juno filed a motion seeking enhanced damages, supplemental damages, ongoing royalties, and prejudgment interest. In March 2020, the Court denied both of Kite’s motions in their entirety. In April 2020, the Court granted in part Juno’s motion and entered a final judgment awarding to Juno and SKI approximately $1.2 billion in royalties, interest and enhanced damages and a 27.6% running royalty on Kite’s sales of Yescarta* from December 13, 2019 through the expiration of the ’190 Patent in August 2024. In April 2020, Kite appealed the final judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. No date has been scheduled for an oral hearing on the appeal. Eliquis - U.S. In 2017, BMS received Notice Letters from twenty-five generic companies notifying BMS that they had filed aNDAs containing paragraph IV certifications 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 response, BMS, along with its partner Pfizer, initiated patent infringement actions under the Hatch-Waxman Act against all generic filers in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware in April 2017. In August 2017, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office granted patent term restoration to the composition of matter patent to November 2026, thereby restoring the term of the Eliquis composition of matter patent, which is BMS’s basis for projected LOE. BMS settled with a number of aNDA filers. These settlements do not affect BMS’s projected LOE for Eliquis. A trial with the remaining aNDA filers took place in late 2019. On August 5, 2020, the U.S. District Court issued a decision finding that the remaining aNDA filers’ products infringed the Eliquis composition of matter and formulation patents and that both Eliquis patents are not invalid. Plavix* - Australia 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., subsequently changed its name to Apotex (“GenRx-Apotex”). In August 2007, GenRx-Apotex filed an application in the Federal Court of Australia 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 of Australia granted Sanofi’s injunction. A subsidiary of BMS 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 GenRx-Apotex case. 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. BMS 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. GenRx-Apotex appealed the holding of validity of the clopidogrel bisulfate, hydrochloride, hydrobromide, and taurocholate claims. On September 29, 2009, the Full Court held all of the claims of Patent No. 597784 invalid. In March 2010, the High Court of Australia denied a request by BMS and Sanofi to hear an appeal of the Full Court decision. The case was remanded to the Federal Court for further proceedings related to damages sought by GenRx-Apotex. BMS and GenRx-Apotex settled, and the GenRx-Apotex case was dismissed. The Australian government intervened in this matter seeking maximum damages up to 449 million AUD ($309 million), plus interest, which would be split between BMS and Sanofi, for alleged losses experienced for paying a higher price for branded Plavix* during the period when the injunction was in place. BMS and Sanofi dispute that the Australian government is entitled to any damages. A trial was concluded in September 2017. In April 2020, the Federal Court issued a decision dismissing the Australian government's claim for damages. In May 2020, the Australian government appealed the Federal Court’s decision. Pomalyst - Canada Celgene received a Notice of Allegation in January 2020 from Natco Pharma (Canada) Inc. (“Natco Canada”) notifying Celgene that it had filed an Abbreviated New Drug Submission (“aNDS”) with Canada’s Minister of Health with respect to certain of Celgene’s Canadian patents. Natco Canada is seeking to market a generic version of Pomalyst in Canada. In response, Celgene initiated a patent infringement action in the Federal Court of Canada. Natco Canada alleges that the asserted patents are invalid and/or not infringed. A trial is scheduled to begin on November 15, 2021. Celgene received two Notices of Allegation in March 2020 from Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories Ltd. (“DRL Canada”) notifying Celgene that it had filed an aNDS with Canada’s Minister of Health with respect to certain of Celgene’s Canadian patents. DRL Canada is seeking to market a generic version of Pomalyst in Canada. In response, Celgene initiated two patent infringement actions in the Federal Court of Canada. DRL Canada alleges that the asserted patents are invalid and/or not infringed. A trial is scheduled to begin on January 17, 2022. Pomalyst - U.S. Beginning in 2017, Celgene received Notice letters on behalf of Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. (“Teva”); Apotex Inc. (“Apotex”) and Apotex Corp.; Hetero Labs Limited, Hetero Labs Limited Unit-V, Hetero Drugs Limited, Hetero USA, Inc. (together, “Hetero”); Eugia Pharma Specialities Limited and Aurobindo Pharma Ltd.; Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc.; and Breckenridge Pharmaceutical, Inc. notifying Celgene that they had filed aNDAs containing paragraph IV certifications seeking approval to market generic versions of Pomalyst in the U.S. In response, Celgene filed patent infringement actions against the companies in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey asserting certain FDA Orange Book-listed patents and the companies filed answers, counterclaims and declaratory judgment actions alleging that the asserted patents are invalid, unenforceable and not infringed. These litigations were subsequently consolidated. In March 2020, Celgene subsequently filed additional patent infringement actions in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey against each of the companies asserting a newly-issued patent that is listed in the FDA Orange Book and that covers formulations comprising pomalidomide. The companies each filed responsive pleadings between April and June 2020, alleging that the patent is invalid and not infringed. The Court has consolidated these additional litigations with the previously-consolidated litigations. A trial is scheduled to begin on January 11, 2021. In February and March 2019, Celgene filed additional patent infringement actions in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey against the companies asserting certain patents that are not listed in the FDA Orange Book and that cover polymorphic forms of pomalidomide, and the companies filed answer and/or counterclaims alleging that each of these patents is invalid and/or not infringed. In these actions, the Court has ordered that the parties be ready for trial by April 15, 2021. In June 2019, Celgene received a Notice Letter from Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, Ltd. and Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, Inc. (together, “DRL”) notifying Celgene that they had filed an aNDA containing paragraph IV certifications seeking approval to market a generic version of Pomalyst in the U.S. In response, Celgene initiated a patent infringement action against DRL in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey asserting certain FDA Orange Book-listed patents, and DRL filed an answer and counterclaims alleging that each of the patents is invalid and/or not infringed. In March 2020, Celgene filed an additional patent infringement action in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey against DRL asserting a newly-issued patent that is listed in the FDA Orange Book and that covers formulations comprising pomalidomide, which has been consolidated with the above DRL case. The Court has not set a trial date in this consolidated action. Revlimid - Canada Celgene received two Notices of Allegation in July 2018 from Natco Canada notifying Celgene of the filing of Natco Canada’s two separate aNDSs with Canada’s Minister of Health with respect to certain of Celgene’s Canadian patents. Natco Canada is seeking to market a generic version of Revlimid in Canada. In response, Celgene initiated patent infringement actions in the Federal Court of Canada and sought an injunction. Natco alleges that the asserted patents are invalid and/or not infringed. The trial, which was scheduled to start on March 30, 2020, has been postponed due to COVID-19. In July 2020, the parties entered into a confidential settlement agreement, which concluded the matter. Revlimid - U.S. Celgene has received Notice Letters on behalf of DRL; Zydus Pharmaceuticals (USA) Inc.; Cipla Ltd. (“Cipla”); Apotex; Sun Pharma Global FZE, Sun Pharma Global Inc., Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Inc., and Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Limited; Hetero; Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc., Mylan Inc., and Mylan N.V. (collectively, “Mylan”); and Aurobindo Pharma Limited, Eugia Pharma Specialities Limited, Aurobindo Pharma USA, Inc., and Aurolife Pharma LLC notifying Celgene that they had filed aNDAs containing paragraph IV certifications seeking approval to market generic versions of Revlimid in the U.S. In response, Celgene filed patent infringement actions against the companies in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey asserting certain FDA Orange Book-listed patents as well as other litigations asserting other non-FDA Orange Book-listed patents against certain defendants, who have filed answers and/or counterclaims alleging that the asserted patents are invalid and/or not infringed. Mylan has filed a motion to dismiss the District of New Jersey action, and that motion remains pending. No trial date has been scheduled in any of these New Jersey actions. Celgene has received two additional Notice Letters on behalf of Cipla, notifying Celgene that Cipla had filed two additional aNDAs containing paragraph IV certifications seeking approval to market generic versions of Revlimid in the U.S. In response, Celgene filed two additional patent infringement actions against Cipla in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey asserting certain FDA Orange Book-listed patents. Cipla has filed an answer and counterclaims alleging that the asserted patents are invalid and/or not infringed in the first of those two actions and has not yet filed a responsive pleading in the second of those two actions. No trial date has been scheduled in either of these two actions. Celgene also filed a patent infringement action against Mylan in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia (the “West Virginia action”) asserting certain FDA Orange Book-listed patents. In April 2020, in the West Virginia action, Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. filed its answer and counterclaims alleging that the patents are invalid, unenforceable and not infringed. Mylan Inc. and Mylan N.V. filed a motion to dismiss, which remains pending. A trial is scheduled to begin in the West Virginia action on October 4, 2021. In May 2020, Celgene received a Notice Letter from Lupin Limited (“Lupin”) notifying Celgene that it had filed an aNDA containing paragraph IV certifications seeking approval to market generic versions of Revlimid in the U.S. In response, Celgene filed a patent infringement action against Lupin in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey asserting certain FDA Orange Book-listed patents. No trial date has been scheduled. Sprycel - U.S. In August 2019, BMS received a Notice Letter from Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, Inc. notifying BMS that it had filed an aNDA containing paragraph IV certifications seeking approval of a generic version of Sprycel in the U.S. and challenging two FDA Orange Book-listed monohydrate form patents expiring in 2025 and 2026. In response, BMS filed a patent infringement action in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. No trial date has been scheduled. In March 2020, BMS received a Notice Letter from Teva notifying BMS that it had filed an aNDA containing paragraph IV certifications seeking approval of a generic version of Sprycel in the U.S. and challenging a FDA Orange Book-listed monohydrate form patent expiring in 2026. In response, BMS filed a patent infringement lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. No trial date has been scheduled. In May 2020, BMS received a Notice Letter from Lupin notifying BMS that it had filed an aNDA containing paragraph IV certifications seeking approval of a generic version of Sprycel in the U.S. and challenging two FDA Orange Book-listed monohydrate form patents expiring in 2025 and 2026. In response, BMS filed patent infringement actions in the U.S. District Courts for the District of New Jersey and Delaware. No trial date has been scheduled. PRICING, SALES AND PROMOTIONAL PRACTICES LITIGATION Plavix* State Attorneys General Lawsuits BMS and certain Sanofi entities 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. The Hawaii matter is currently scheduled for trial in October 2020. PRODUCT LIABILITY LITIGATION BMS 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, BMS also faces unfiled claims involving its products. Abilify BMS 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 2,500 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 U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida. In February 2019, BMS 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 various state courts, including California and New Jersey. To date, approximately 2,700 cases, comprising approximately 3,900 plaintiffs, have been dismissed based on participation in the settlement program or failure to comply with settlement related court orders. In the U.S., approximately 138 cases remain pending on behalf of 218 plaintiffs, who either chose not to participate in the settlement program or filed their claims after the settlement cut-off date. There are ten cases pending in Canada (four class actions, six individual injury claims). Out of the ten cases, only three are active (the class actions in Quebec and Ontario and one individual injury claim). Both class actions have now been certified and will proceed separately. Byetta* Amylin, a former subsidiary of BMS, and Lilly are co-defendants in product liability litigation related to Byetta. To date, there are approximately 590 separate lawsuits pending on behalf of approximately 2,245 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 summary judgment order and remanded those cases to the JCCP for further proceedings. Amylin has filed a motion for summary judgment based on federal preemption and a motion for summary judgment based on the absence of general causation evidence, both set to be heard in October 2020. Amylin had product liability insurance covering a substantial number of claims involving Byetta* (which has been exhausted). As part of BMS’s global diabetes business divestiture, BMS sold Byetta* to AstraZeneca in February 2014 and any additional liability to Amylin with respect to Byetta* is expected to be shared with AstraZeneca. Onglyza* BMS 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 June 2020, claims are pending in state and federal court on behalf of approximately 279 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 BMS’s global diabetes business divestiture, BMS sold Onglyza* to AstraZeneca in February 2014 and any potential liability with respect to Onglyza* is expected to be shared with AstraZeneca. SECURITIES LITIGATION BMS Securities Class Action 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 BMS, BMS’s Chief Executive Officer, Giovanni Caforio, BMS’s Chief Financial Officer at the time, Charles A. Bancroft and certain former and current executives of BMS. The case in California has been voluntarily dismissed. The remaining complaint alleges violations of securities laws for BMS’s disclosures related to the CheckMate-026 clinical trial in lung cancer. In September 2019, the Court granted BMS’s motion to dismiss, but allowed the plaintiffs leave to file an amended complaint. In October 2019, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. BMS has moved to dismiss the amended complaint. In June 2020, an oral argument on BMS’s motion to dismiss was held. Celgene Securities Class Action Beginning in March 2018, two putative class actions were filed against Celgene and certain of its officers in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey (the “Celgene Securities Class Action”). The complaints allege that the defendants violated federal securities laws by making misstatements and/or omissions concerning (1) trials of GED-0301, (2) Celgene’s 2020 outlook and projected sales of Otezla, and (3) the new drug application for Zeposia (ozanimod). The Court consolidated the two actions and appointed a lead plaintiff, lead counsel, and co-liaison counsel for the putative class. In February 2019, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss plaintiff’s amended complaint in full. In December 2019, the Court denied the motion to dismiss in part and granted the motion to dismiss in part (including all claims arising from alleged misstatements regarding GED-0301). Although the Court gave the plaintiff leave to re-plead the dismissed claims, it elected not to do so, and the dismissed claims are now dismissed with prejudice. No trial date has been scheduled for the claims that survived the Court’s order. In May 2020, the plaintiff filed a motion for class certification. In June 2020, the defendants filed their opposition to the plaintiff’s motion for class certification. In April 2020, certain Schwab management investment companies on behalf of certain Schwab funds filed an individual action in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey asserting largely the same allegations as the Celgene Securities Class Action against the same remaining defendants in that action. In July 2020, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ complaint in full. OTHER LITIGATION Average Manufacturer Price Litigation BMS 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 BMS 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. In January 2020, BMS reached an agreement in principle to resolve this matter subject to the negotiation of a definitive settlement agreement and other contingencies. BMS cannot provide assurances that its efforts to reach a final settlement will be successful. HIV Medication Antitrust Lawsuits BMS and several other manufacturers of HIV medications are defendants in related lawsuits pending in the Northern District of California. The lawsuits allege that the defendants’ agreements to develop and sell fixed-dose combination products for the treatment of HIV, including Atripla* and Evotaz, violate antitrust laws. The currently pending actions, which are asserted on behalf of indirect purchasers, were initiated in 2019 in the Northern District of California and in 2020 in the Southern District of Florida. The Florida matter was transferred to the Northern District of California. In July 2020, the Court granted in part defendants’ motion to dismiss, including dismissing with prejudice plaintiffs' claims as to an overarching conspiracy and plaintiffs' theories based on the alleged payment of royalties after patent expiration. Other claims, however, remain. A trial is scheduled for February 2022. In addition, an action on behalf of direct purchasers was filed in 2020 in the Northern District of California, but this action was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice in June 2020. Humana Litigations On May 16, 2018, Humana, Inc. (“Humana”) filed a lawsuit against Celgene in the Pike County Circuit Court of the Commonwealth of Kentucky. Humana’s complaint alleges Celgene engaged in unlawful off-label marketing in connection with sales of Thalomid and Revlimid and asserts claims against Celgene for fraud, breach of contract, negligent misrepresentation, unjust enrichment and violations of New Jersey’s Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. The complaint seeks, among other things, treble and punitive damages, injunctive relief and attorneys’ fees and costs. In April 2019, Celgene filed a motion to dismiss Humana’s complaint, which the Court denied in January 2020. No trial date has been scheduled. In May 2020, Celgene filed suit against Humana Pharmacy, Inc. (“HPI”), a Humana subsidiary, in Delaware Superior Court. Celgene’s complaint alleges that HPI breached its contractual obligations to Celgene by assigning claims to Humana that Humana is now asserting. The complaint seeks damages for HPI’s breach as well as a declaratory judgment. On March 1, 2019, Humana filed a separate lawsuit against Celgene in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. Humana’s complaint alleges that Celgene violated various antitrust, consumer protection, and unfair competition laws to delay or prevent generic competition for Thalomid and Revlimid brand drugs, including (a) allegedly refusing to sell samples of products to generic manufacturers for purposes of bioequivalence testing intended to be included in aNDAs for approval to market generic versions of these products; (b) allegedly bringing unjustified patent infringement lawsuits, procuring invalid patents, and/or entering into anticompetitive patent settlements; (c) allegedly securing an exclusive supply contract for supply of thalidomide active pharmaceutical ingredient. The complaint purports to assert claims on behalf of Humana and its subsidiaries in several capacities, including as a direct purchaser and as an indirect purchaser, and seeks, among other things, treble and punitive damages, injunctive relief and attorneys’ fees and costs. Celgene filed a motion to dismiss Humana’s complaint, and the Court has stayed discovery pending adjudication of that motion. No trial date has been scheduled. Thalomid and Revlimid Antitrust Class Action Litigation Beginning in November 2014, certain putative class action lawsuits were filed against Celgene in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey alleging that Celgene violated various antitrust, consumer protection, and unfair competition laws by (a) allegedly securing an exclusive supply contract for the alleged purpose of preventing a generic manufacturer from securing its own supply of thalidomide active pharmaceutical ingredient, (b) allegedly refusing to sell samples of Thalomid and Revlimid brand drugs to various generic manufacturers for the alleged purpose of bioequivalence testing necessary for aNDAs to be submitted to the FDA for approval to market generic versions of these products, (c) allegedly bringing unjustified patent infringement lawsuits in order to allegedly delay approval for proposed generic versions of Thalomid and Revlimid, and/or (d) allegedly entering into settlements of patent infringement lawsuits with certain generic manufacturers that allegedly have had anticompetitive effects. The plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and putative classes of third-party payers, are seeking injunctive relief and damages. The various lawsuits were consolidated into a master action for all purposes. In October 2017, the plaintiffs filed a motion for certification of two damages classes under the laws of thirteen states and the District of Columbia and a nationwide injunction class. Celgene filed an opposition to the plaintiffs’ motion and a motion for judgment on the pleadings dismissing all state law claims where the plaintiffs no longer seek to represent a class. In October 2018, the Court denied the plaintiffs’ motion for class certification and Celgene’s motion for judgment on the pleadings. In December 2018, the plaintiffs filed a new motion for class certification, which Celgene opposed. In July 2019, the parties reached a settlement under which all the putative class plaintiff claims would be dismissed with prejudice. In December 2019, after certain third-party payors who were members of the settlement class refused to release their potential claims and participate in the settlement, Celgene exercised its right to terminate the settlement agreement. In March 2020, Celgene reached a revised settlement with the class plaintiffs. In May 2020, the Court preliminarily approved the settlement and a hearing on fairness and final approval is scheduled for September 30, 2020. That settlement does not resolve the claims of certain entities that opted out of the first settlement. In March 2020, United HealthCare Services, Inc. (“UHS”), affiliates of which opted out of the first settlement in the Thalomid and Revlimid Antitrust Class Action Litigation, filed a lawsuit against Celgene in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota. UHS’s complaint makes largely the same claims and allegations as the class action litigation. The complaint purports to assert claims on behalf of UHS and its subsidiaries in several capacities, including as a direct purchaser and as an indirect purchaser, and seeks, among other things, treble and punitive damages, injunctive relief and attorneys’ fees and costs. Motions to transfer and dismiss this matter are pending. GOVERNMENT INVESTIGATIONS Like other pharmaceutical companies, BMS and certain of its subsidiaries are subject to extensive regulation by national, state and local authorities in the U.S. and other countries in which BMS operates. As a result, BMS, from time to time, is subject to various governmental and regulatory inquiries and investigations as well as threatened legal actions and proceedings. It is possible that criminal charges, substantial fines and/or civil penalties, could result from government or regulatory investigations. ENVIRONMENTAL PROCEEDINGS As previously reported, BMS 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 BMS’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 BMS is responsible under various state, federal and foreign laws, BMS 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 BMS accrues liabilities when they are probable and reasonably estimable. BMS estimated its share of future costs for these sites to be $77.4 million at June 30, 2020, 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.

BMS 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. These matters may 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, 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. Legal proceedings that are significant or that BMS believes could become significant or material are described below.

While BMS does not believe that any of these matters, except as otherwise specifically noted below, will have a material adverse effect on its financial position or liquidity as BMS believes it has substantial defenses in the matters, the outcomes of BMS’s legal proceedings and other contingencies are inherently unpredictable and subject to significant uncertainties. There can be no assurance that there will not be an increase in the scope of one or more of these pending matters or any other or future lawsuits, claims, government investigations or other legal proceedings will not be material to BMS’s financial position, results of operations or cash flows for a particular period. Furthermore, failure to enforce BMS’s patent rights would likely result in substantial decreases in the respective product revenues from generic competition.

Unless otherwise noted, BMS is unable to assess the outcome of the respective matters nor is it able to estimate the possible loss or range of losses that could potentially result for such matters. Contingency accruals are recognized when it is probable that a liability will be incurred and the amount of the related loss can be reasonably estimated. Developments in legal proceedings and other matters that could cause changes in the amounts previously accrued are evaluated each reporting period. For a discussion of BMS’s tax contingencies, see “—Note 7. Income Taxes”.

In September 2015, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute (“Dana-Farber”) filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts seeking to correct the inventorship on up to six 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, BMS settled the lawsuit with Pfizer. A bench trial in the lawsuit with Dana-Farber took place in February 2019. In May 2019, the Court issued an opinion ruling that the two scientists should be added as inventors to the patents. The decision was appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and the Federal Circuit affirmed the District Court opinion. BMS is considering its appeal options. In June 2019, Dana-Farber filed a new lawsuit in the District of Massachusetts against BMS seeking damages as a result of the Court’s decision adding the scientists as inventors.

On October 18, 2017, the day on which the FDA approved Kite Pharma, Inc.’s (“Kite”) Yescarta* product, Juno, along with Sloan Kettering Institute for Cancer Research (“SKI”), filed a complaint against Kite in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The complaint alleged that Yescarta* infringes certain claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,446,190 (“the ’190 Patent”) concerning CAR T cell technologies. Kite filed an answer and counterclaims asserting non-infringement and invalidity of the ’190 Patent. In December 2019, following an eight-day trial, the jury rejected Kite’s defenses, finding that Kite willfully infringed the ’190 Patent and awarding to Juno and SKI a reasonable royalty consisting of a $585 million upfront payment and a 27.6% running royalty on Kite’s sales of Yescarta* through the expiration of the ’190 Patent in August 2024. In January 2020, Kite renewed its previous motion for judgment as a matter of law and also moved for a new trial, and Juno filed a motion seeking enhanced damages, supplemental damages, ongoing royalties, and prejudgment interest. In March 2020, the Court denied both of Kite’s motions in their entirety. In April 2020, the Court granted in part Juno’s motion and entered a final judgment awarding to Juno and SKI approximately $1.2 billion in royalties, interest and enhanced damages and a 27.6% running royalty on Kite’s sales of Yescarta* from December 13, 2019 through the expiration of the ’190 Patent in August 2024. In April 2020, Kite appealed the final judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. No date has been scheduled for an oral hearing on the appeal.

In 2017, BMS received Notice Letters from twenty-five generic companies notifying BMS that they had filed aNDAs containing paragraph IV certifications 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 response, BMS, along with its partner Pfizer, initiated patent infringement actions under the Hatch-Waxman Act against all generic filers in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware in April 2017. In August 2017, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office granted patent term restoration to the composition of matter patent to November 2026, thereby restoring the term of the Eliquis composition of matter patent, which is BMS’s basis for projected LOE. BMS settled with a number of aNDA filers. These settlements do not affect BMS’s projected LOE for Eliquis. A trial with the remaining aNDA filers took place in late 2019. On August 5, 2020, the U.S. District Court issued a decision finding that the remaining aNDA filers’ products infringed the Eliquis composition of matter and formulation patents and that both Eliquis patents are not invalid.

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., subsequently changed its name to Apotex (“GenRx-Apotex”). In August 2007, GenRx-Apotex filed an application in the Federal Court of Australia 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 of Australia granted Sanofi’s injunction. A subsidiary of BMS 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 GenRx-Apotex case. 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. BMS 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. GenRx-Apotex appealed the holding of validity of the clopidogrel bisulfate, hydrochloride, hydrobromide, and taurocholate claims. On September 29, 2009, the Full Court held all of the claims of Patent No. 597784 invalid. In March 2010, the High Court of Australia denied a request by BMS and Sanofi to hear an appeal of the Full Court decision. The case was remanded to the Federal Court for further proceedings related to damages sought by GenRx-Apotex. BMS and GenRx-Apotex settled, and the GenRx-Apotex case was dismissed. The Australian government intervened in this matter seeking maximum damages up to 449 million AUD ($309 million), plus interest, which would be split between BMS and Sanofi, for alleged losses experienced for paying a higher price for branded Plavix* during the period when the injunction was in place. BMS and Sanofi dispute that the Australian government is entitled to any damages. A trial was concluded in September 2017. In April 2020, the Federal Court issued a decision dismissing the Australian government's claim for damages. In May 2020, the Australian government appealed the Federal Court’s decision.

Celgene received a Notice of Allegation in January 2020 from Natco Pharma (Canada) Inc. (“Natco Canada”) notifying Celgene that it had filed an Abbreviated New Drug Submission (“aNDS”) with Canada’s Minister of Health with respect to certain of Celgene’s Canadian patents. Natco Canada is seeking to market a generic version of Pomalyst in Canada. In response, Celgene initiated a patent infringement action in the Federal Court of Canada. Natco Canada alleges that the asserted patents are invalid and/or not infringed. A trial is scheduled to begin on November 15, 2021.

Celgene received two Notices of Allegation in March 2020 from Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories Ltd. (“DRL Canada”) notifying Celgene that it had filed an aNDS with Canada’s Minister of Health with respect to certain of Celgene’s Canadian patents. DRL Canada is seeking to market a generic version of Pomalyst in Canada. In response, Celgene initiated two patent infringement actions in the Federal Court of Canada. DRL Canada alleges that the asserted patents are invalid and/or not infringed. A trial is scheduled to begin on January 17, 2022.

Beginning in 2017, Celgene received Notice letters on behalf of Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. (“Teva”); Apotex Inc. (“Apotex”) and Apotex Corp.; Hetero Labs Limited, Hetero Labs Limited Unit-V, Hetero Drugs Limited, Hetero USA, Inc. (together, “Hetero”); Eugia Pharma Specialities Limited and Aurobindo Pharma Ltd.; Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc.; and Breckenridge Pharmaceutical, Inc. notifying Celgene that they had filed aNDAs containing paragraph IV certifications seeking approval to market generic versions of Pomalyst in the U.S. In response, Celgene filed patent infringement actions against the companies in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey asserting certain FDA Orange Book-listed patents and the companies filed answers, counterclaims and declaratory judgment actions alleging that the asserted patents are invalid, unenforceable and not infringed. These litigations were subsequently consolidated. In March 2020, Celgene subsequently filed additional patent infringement actions in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey against each of the companies asserting a newly-issued patent that is listed in the FDA Orange Book and that covers formulations comprising pomalidomide. The companies each filed responsive pleadings between April and June 2020, alleging that the patent is invalid and not infringed. The Court has consolidated these additional litigations with the previously-consolidated litigations. A trial is scheduled to begin on January 11, 2021.

In June 2019, Celgene received a Notice Letter from Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, Ltd. and Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, Inc. (together, “DRL”) notifying Celgene that they had filed an aNDA containing paragraph IV certifications seeking approval to market a generic version of Pomalyst in the U.S. In response, Celgene initiated a patent infringement action against DRL in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey asserting certain FDA Orange Book-listed patents, and DRL filed an answer and counterclaims alleging that each of the patents is invalid and/or not infringed.

Celgene received two Notices of Allegation in July 2018 from Natco Canada notifying Celgene of the filing of Natco Canada’s two separate aNDSs with Canada’s Minister of Health with respect to certain of Celgene’s Canadian patents. Natco Canada is seeking to market a generic version of Revlimid in Canada. In response, Celgene initiated patent infringement actions in the Federal Court of Canada and sought an injunction. Natco alleges that the asserted patents are invalid and/or not infringed. The trial, which was scheduled to start on March 30, 2020, has been postponed due to COVID-19. In July 2020, the parties entered into a confidential settlement agreement, which concluded the matter.

Celgene has received Notice Letters on behalf of DRL; Zydus Pharmaceuticals (USA) Inc.; Cipla Ltd. (“Cipla”); Apotex; Sun Pharma Global FZE, Sun Pharma Global Inc., Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Inc., and Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Limited; Hetero; Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc., Mylan Inc., and Mylan N.V. (collectively, “Mylan”); and Aurobindo Pharma Limited, Eugia Pharma Specialities Limited, Aurobindo Pharma USA, Inc., and Aurolife Pharma LLC notifying Celgene that they had filed aNDAs containing paragraph IV certifications seeking approval to market generic versions of Revlimid in the U.S. In response, Celgene filed patent infringement actions against the companies in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey asserting certain FDA Orange Book-listed patents as well as other litigations asserting other non-FDA Orange Book-listed patents against certain defendants, who have filed answers and/or counterclaims alleging that the asserted patents are invalid and/or not infringed. Mylan has filed a motion to dismiss the District of New Jersey action, and that motion remains pending. No trial date has been scheduled in any of these New Jersey actions.

Celgene has received two additional Notice Letters on behalf of Cipla, notifying Celgene that Cipla had filed two additional aNDAs containing paragraph IV certifications seeking approval to market generic versions of Revlimid in the U.S. In response, Celgene filed two additional patent infringement actions against Cipla in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey asserting certain FDA Orange Book-listed patents. Cipla has filed an answer and counterclaims alleging that the asserted patents are invalid and/or not infringed in the first of those two actions and has not yet filed a responsive pleading in the second of those two actions. No trial date has been scheduled in either of these two actions.

Celgene also filed a patent infringement action against Mylan in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia (the “West Virginia action”) asserting certain FDA Orange Book-listed patents. In April 2020, in the West Virginia action, Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. filed its answer and counterclaims alleging that the patents are invalid, unenforceable and not infringed. Mylan Inc. and Mylan N.V. filed a motion to dismiss, which remains pending. A trial is scheduled to begin in the West Virginia action on October 4, 2021.

BMS 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 2,500 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 U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida. In February 2019, BMS 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 various state courts, including California and New Jersey. To date, approximately 2,700 cases, comprising approximately 3,900 plaintiffs, have been dismissed based on participation in the settlement program or failure to comply with settlement related court orders. In the U.S., approximately 138 cases remain pending on behalf of 218 plaintiffs, who either chose not to participate in the settlement program or filed their claims after the settlement cut-off date. There are ten cases pending in Canada (four class actions, six individual injury claims). Out of the ten cases, only three are active (the class actions in Quebec and Ontario and one individual injury claim). Both class actions have now been certified and will proceed separately.

Amylin, a former subsidiary of BMS, and Lilly are co-defendants in product liability litigation related to Byetta*. To date, there are approximately 590 separate lawsuits pending on behalf of approximately 2,245 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 summary judgment order and remanded those cases to the JCCP for further proceedings. Amylin has filed a motion for summary judgment based on federal preemption and a motion for summary judgment based on the absence of general causation evidence, both set to be heard in October 2020. Amylin had product liability insurance covering a substantial number of claims involving Byetta* (which has been exhausted). As part of BMS’s global diabetes business divestiture, BMS sold Byetta* to AstraZeneca in February 2014 and any additional liability to Amylin with respect to Byetta* is expected to be shared with AstraZeneca.

BMS 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 June 2020, claims are pending in state and federal court on behalf of approximately 279 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 BMS’s global diabetes business divestiture, BMS sold Onglyza* to AstraZeneca in February 2014 and any potential liability with respect to Onglyza* is expected to be shared with AstraZeneca.

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 BMS, BMS’s Chief Executive Officer, Giovanni Caforio, BMS’s Chief Financial Officer at the time, Charles A. Bancroft and certain former and current executives of BMS. The case in California has been voluntarily dismissed. The remaining complaint alleges violations of securities laws for BMS’s disclosures related to the CheckMate-026 clinical trial in lung cancer. In September 2019, the Court granted BMS’s motion to dismiss, but allowed the plaintiffs leave to file an amended complaint. In October 2019, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. BMS has moved to dismiss the amended complaint. In June 2020, an oral argument on BMS’s motion to dismiss was held.

Beginning in March 2018, two putative class actions were filed against Celgene and certain of its officers in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey (the “Celgene Securities Class Action”). The complaints allege that the defendants violated federal securities laws by making misstatements and/or omissions concerning (1) trials of GED-0301, (2) Celgene’s 2020 outlook and projected sales of Otezla, and (3) the new drug application for Zeposia (ozanimod). The Court consolidated the two actions and appointed a lead plaintiff, lead counsel, and co-liaison counsel for the putative class. In February 2019, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss plaintiff’s amended complaint in full. In December 2019, the Court denied the motion to dismiss in part and granted the motion to dismiss in part (including all claims arising from alleged misstatements regarding GED-0301). Although the Court gave the plaintiff leave to re-plead the dismissed claims, it elected not to do so, and the dismissed claims are now dismissed with prejudice. No trial date has been scheduled for the claims that survived the Court’s order. In May 2020, the plaintiff filed a motion for class certification. In June 2020, the defendants filed their opposition to the plaintiff’s motion for class certification.

BMS 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 BMS 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. In January 2020, BMS reached an agreement in principle to resolve this matter subject to the negotiation of a definitive settlement agreement and other contingencies. BMS cannot provide assurances that its efforts to reach a final settlement will be successful.

BMS and several other manufacturers of HIV medications are defendants in related lawsuits pending in the Northern District of California. The lawsuits allege that the defendants’ agreements to develop and sell fixed-dose combination products for the treatment of HIV, including Atripla* and Evotaz, violate antitrust laws. The currently pending actions, which are asserted on behalf of indirect purchasers, were initiated in 2019 in the Northern District of California and in 2020 in the Southern District of Florida. The Florida matter was transferred to the Northern District of California. In July 2020, the Court granted in part defendants’ motion to dismiss, including dismissing with prejudice plaintiffs' claims as to an overarching conspiracy and plaintiffs' theories based on the alleged payment of royalties after patent expiration. Other claims, however, remain. A trial is scheduled for February 2022. In addition, an action on behalf of direct purchasers was filed in 2020 in the Northern District of California, but this action was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice in June 2020.

On May 16, 2018, Humana, Inc. (“Humana”) filed a lawsuit against Celgene in the Pike County Circuit Court of the Commonwealth of Kentucky. Humana’s complaint alleges Celgene engaged in unlawful off-label marketing in connection with sales of Thalomid and Revlimid and asserts claims against Celgene for fraud, breach of contract, negligent misrepresentation, unjust enrichment and violations of New Jersey’s Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. The complaint seeks, among other things, treble and punitive damages, injunctive relief and attorneys’ fees and costs. In April 2019, Celgene filed a motion to dismiss Humana’s complaint, which the Court denied in January 2020. No trial date has been scheduled. In May 2020, Celgene filed suit against Humana Pharmacy, Inc. (“HPI”), a Humana subsidiary, in Delaware Superior Court. Celgene’s complaint alleges that HPI breached its contractual obligations to Celgene by assigning claims to Humana that Humana is now asserting. The complaint seeks damages for HPI’s breach as well as a declaratory judgment.

On March 1, 2019, Humana filed a separate lawsuit against Celgene in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. Humana’s complaint alleges that Celgene violated various antitrust, consumer protection, and unfair competition laws to delay or prevent generic competition for Thalomid and Revlimid brand drugs, including (a) allegedly refusing to sell samples of products to generic manufacturers for purposes of bioequivalence testing intended to be included in aNDAs for approval to market generic versions of these products; (b) allegedly bringing unjustified patent infringement lawsuits, procuring invalid patents, and/or entering into anticompetitive patent settlements; (c) allegedly securing an exclusive supply contract for supply of thalidomide active pharmaceutical ingredient. The complaint purports to assert claims on behalf of Humana and its subsidiaries in several capacities, including as a direct purchaser and as an indirect purchaser, and seeks, among other things, treble and punitive damages, injunctive relief and attorneys’ fees and costs. Celgene filed a motion to dismiss Humana’s complaint, and the Court has stayed discovery pending adjudication of that motion. No trial date has been scheduled.

Beginning in November 2014, certain putative class action lawsuits were filed against Celgene in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey alleging that Celgene violated various antitrust, consumer protection, and unfair competition laws by (a) allegedly securing an exclusive supply contract for the alleged purpose of preventing a generic manufacturer from securing its own supply of thalidomide active pharmaceutical ingredient, (b) allegedly refusing to sell samples of Thalomid and Revlimid brand drugs to various generic manufacturers for the alleged purpose of bioequivalence testing necessary for aNDAs to be submitted to the FDA for approval to market generic versions of these products, (c) allegedly bringing unjustified patent infringement lawsuits in order to allegedly delay approval for proposed generic versions of Thalomid and Revlimid, and/or (d) allegedly entering into settlements of patent infringement lawsuits with certain generic manufacturers that allegedly have had anticompetitive effects. The plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and putative classes of third-party payers, are seeking injunctive relief and damages. The various lawsuits were consolidated into a master action for all purposes. In October 2017, the plaintiffs filed a motion for certification of two damages classes under the laws of thirteen states and the District of Columbia and a nationwide injunction class. Celgene filed an opposition to the plaintiffs’ motion and a motion for judgment on the pleadings dismissing all state law claims where the plaintiffs no longer seek to represent a class. In October 2018, the Court denied the plaintiffs’ motion for class certification and Celgene’s motion for judgment on the pleadings. In December 2018, the plaintiffs filed a new motion for class certification, which Celgene opposed. In July 2019, the parties reached a settlement under which all the putative class plaintiff claims would be dismissed with prejudice. In December 2019, after certain third-party payors who were members of the settlement class refused to release their potential claims and participate in the settlement, Celgene exercised its right to terminate the settlement agreement. In March 2020, Celgene reached a revised settlement with the class plaintiffs. In May 2020, the Court preliminarily approved the settlement and a hearing on fairness and final approval is scheduled for September 30, 2020. That settlement does not resolve the claims of certain entities that opted out of the first settlement.

In March 2020, United HealthCare Services, Inc. (“UHS”), affiliates of which opted out of the first settlement in the Thalomid and Revlimid Antitrust Class Action Litigation, filed a lawsuit against Celgene in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota. UHS’s complaint makes largely the same claims and allegations as the class action litigation. The complaint purports to assert claims on behalf of UHS and its subsidiaries in several capacities, including as a direct purchaser and as an indirect purchaser, and seeks, among other things, treble and punitive damages, injunctive relief and attorneys’ fees and costs. Motions to transfer and dismiss this matter are pending.

With respect to CERCLA matters for which BMS is responsible under various state, federal and foreign laws, BMS 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 BMS accrues liabilities when they are probable and reasonably estimable. BMS estimated its share of future costs for these sites to be $77.4 million at June 30, 2020, 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.