LEGAL PROCEEDINGS AND CONTINGENCIES	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2024
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
LEGAL PROCEEDINGS AND CONTINGENCIES	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, partners, suppliers, service providers, licensees, licensors, 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 claims and/or 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 successfully 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 Eliquis - Europe Lawsuits have been filed by generic companies in various countries in Europe seeking revocation of our composition-of-matter patents and SPCs relating to Eliquis, and trials or preliminary proceedings have been held in certain of those cases. In Belgium, BMS filed infringement proceedings against Sandoz in February 2024. A hearing date in these proceedings has been scheduled for November 2024. In Croatia, in February 2024, the court granted BMS's request for a preliminary injunction to prohibit Teva from offering, storing or selling generic Eliquis products in Croatia. Teva has appealed this decision. In Finland, the court granted our request for a preliminary injunction prohibiting Teva from offering, storing or selling generic Eliquis products in Finland that have obtained price and reimbursement. A trial regarding Teva's challenge to the validity of the Finnish composition-of-matter patent and related SPC concluded on July 5, 2023. On May 22, 2024, the Finnish court held the patent to be invalid. BMS will seek permission to appeal this decision. In France, a trial was held regarding Teva's challenge to the validity of the French composition-of-matter patent and related SPC, and a decision was issued on June 8, 2023, confirming their validity and rejecting Teva's claims. Teva has appealed the decision and a hearing of the appeal has been scheduled for April 2025. In Ireland, the court granted our request for a preliminary injunction prohibiting Teva from making, offering, putting on the market and/or using and/or importing or stocking for the aforesaid purposes, generic Eliquis products. The trial court's preliminary injunction decision was subsequently affirmed on appeal by the Irish Court of Appeal. In a decision delivered on December 8, 2023, the Irish trial court found the Irish composition-of-matter patent and related SPC to be invalid. BMS appealed the Irish trial court's decision. On June 13, 2024, the Irish Court of Appeal entered an injunction restraining Teva from launching its generic product pending the determination of BMS's appeal of the trial court's invalidity decision. In the Netherlands, our requests for preliminary injunctions to prevent at-risk generic launches by Sandoz, Stada and Teva prior to full trials on the validity of the Dutch composition-of-matter patent and SPC were initially denied by the lower courts. However, in a judgment issued on August 15, 2023, the Dutch Court of Appeal overturned the decisions of the lower court, issued preliminary injunctions against Sandoz, Stada and Teva and ordered those companies to recall any generic Eliquis product from the Dutch market. Trials regarding challenges brought by Sandoz and Teva, respectively, to the validity of the Dutch composition-of-matter patent and related SPC took place on October 13, 2023 and January 12, 2024, and decisions are pending. In Norway, a trial was held regarding Teva's challenge to the validity of the Norwegian composition-of-matter patent and related SPC, and a decision was issued on May 23, 2023, confirming their validity and rejecting Teva's claims. Teva appealed the decision, and on June 3, 2024, the Court of Appeal issued a decision confirming the validity of the patent and related SPC. The deadline for Teva to appeal the decision of the Court of Appeal is August 19, 2024. In Portugal, there are patent validity and infringement proceedings pending with multiple companies seeking to market generic versions of Eliquis. A trial regarding Mylan's challenge to the validity of the Portuguese composition-of-matter patent began in February 2024 and is ongoing. In early September 2023, Teva launched a generic Eliquis product on the Portuguese market. On September 15, 2023, the Company filed a request for a preliminary injunction against Teva at the Portuguese Intellectual Property Court. The hearing of the preliminary injunction against Teva is ongoing. In Romania, our request for a preliminary injunction against Teva was initially denied by the lower court. However, in January 2024, the Romania Court of Appeal overturned the decision of the lower court, and issued a preliminary injunction against Teva prohibiting Teva from offering, storing or selling generic Eliquis products in Romania. In Spain, a trial regarding Teva's challenge to the validity of the Spanish composition-of-matter patent and related SPC was held on October 18-19, 2023, and in a decision delivered in January 2024, the Barcelona Commercial Court found the Spanish composition-of-matter patent and related SPC to be invalid. BMS appealed the decision of the Barcelona Commercial Court to the Barcelona Court of Appeal. In February 2024, the Madrid Commercial Court granted BMS’s preliminary injunctions against Teva, Sandoz and Normon pending determination of the appeal of the decision of the Barcelona Commercial Court. Teva sought an order from the Barcelona Commercial Court to effectively overturn the preliminary injunction. BMS then sought and was granted an order from the Madrid Commercial Court requiring Teva to comply with the preliminary injunction. The issue was referred to the Spanish Supreme Court, which on April 26, 2024 issued a judgment requiring the Madrid Commercial Court to lift the injunction in place against Teva. On July 16, 2024, the Madrid Commercial Court issued a decision maintaining the preliminary injunctions against Sandoz and Normon. In a decision dated July 18, 2024, the Barcelona Court of Appeal overturned the decision of the Barcelona Commercial Court and upheld the validity of the Spanish composition-of-matter patent and related SPC. In Sweden, a trial was held regarding Teva's challenge to the validity of the Swedish composition-of-matter patent and related SPC, and a decision was issued on November 2, 2022, confirming their validity and rejecting Teva's claims. Teva appealed the decision, and the appeal was heard in May 2024. On June 20, 2024, the Court of Appeal issued a decision upholding the validity of the patent and related SPC. In Switzerland, a trial was held regarding Teva's challenge to the validity of the Swiss composition-of-matter patent and related SPC, and a decision was issued on March 8, 2024, confirming their validity and rejecting Teva's claims. Teva has appealed this decision. In the UK, Sandoz and Teva filed lawsuits seeking revocation of the UK composition-of-matter patent and related SPC. BMS subsequently filed counterclaims for infringement in both actions. A combined trial took place in February 2022, and in a judgment issued on April 7, 2022, the judge found the UK apixaban composition-of-matter patent and related SPC invalid. BMS appealed the judgment and on May 4, 2023, the Court of Appeal upheld the lower court's decision. On October 31, 2023, the UK Supreme Court rejected BMS's application to appeal. Following the first instance decision in the UK, generic manufacturers have begun marketing generic versions of Eliquis in the UK. In addition to the above, challenges to the validity of the composition-of-matter patent and related SPC are pending in Denmark, Italy, Poland, Czechia, Slovakia, Hungary, Bulgaria, Greece and Lithuania. Generic manufacturers may seek to market generic versions of Eliquis in additional countries in Europe prior to the expiration of our patents, which may lead to additional infringement and invalidity actions involving Eliquis patents being filed in various countries in Europe. Onureg – U.S. BMS received Notice Letters from Accord Healthcare, Inc. ("Accord"), MSN Laboratories Private Limited ("MSN"), Teva Pharmaceuticals, Inc. ("Teva") and Natco Pharma Limited ("Natco"), respectively, each notifying BMS that it has filed an ANDA containing a paragraph IV certification seeking approval of a generic version of Onureg in the U.S. and challenging U.S. Patent Nos. 11,571,436 (the "'436 Patent") and 8,846,628 (the "'628 Patent"), FDA Orange Book-listed formulation patents covering Onureg, which expire in 2029 and 2030, respectively. In response, BMS filed a patent infringement action against Accord, MSN, Teva and Natco in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. BMS subsequently entered into confidential settlement agreements with each of Accord, MSN, Teva and Natco, and the cases against each have been dismissed. 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. 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 ($298 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 and an appeal hearing concluded in February 2021. On June 26, 2023, the appeal court issued a ruling in BMS and Sanofi's favor, upholding the lower court's decision. In December 2023, the Australian government was granted leave to appeal the decision to the High Court of Australia, and the High Court scheduled an appeal hearing for September 4-6, 2024. Zeposia - U.S. On October 15, 2021, Actelion Pharmaceuticals LTD and Actelion Pharmaceuticals US, INC ("Actelion") filed a complaint for patent infringement in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey against BMS and Celgene for alleged infringement of U.S. Patent No. 10,251,867 (the "'867 Patent"). The Complaint alleges that the sale of Zeposia infringes certain claims of the '867 Patent and Actelion is seeking damages. No trial date has been scheduled. In May and June 2024, BMS received Notice Letters from Synthon BV ("Synthon") and Apotex Inc. ("Apotex"), respectively, each notifying BMS that it has filed an ANDA containing a paragraph IV certification seeking approval of a generic version of Zeposia in the U.S. and challenging a U.S. patent listed in the Orange Book for Zeposia. In response, BMS filed patent infringement actions against Synthon and Apotex in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. PRICING, SALES AND PROMOTIONAL PRACTICES LITIGATION Plavix* State Attorneys General Lawsuits BMS and certain Sanofi entities are defendants in a consumer protection action brought by the attorney general of Hawaii relating to the labeling, sales and/or promotion of Plavix. In February 2021, a Hawaii state court judge issued a decision against Sanofi and BMS, imposing penalties in the total amount of $834 million, with $417 million attributed to BMS. Sanofi and BMS appealed the decision. On March 15, 2023, the Hawaii Supreme Court issued its decision, reversing in part and affirming in part the trial court decision, vacating the penalty award and remanding the case for a new trial and penalty determination. A new bench trial concluded on October 16, 2023. On May 21, 2024, the trial court issued a new decision against Sanofi and BMS, imposing penalties in the total amount of $916 million, with $458 million attributed to BMS. Sanofi and BMS will appeal the decision. 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. Cases were filed in state and federal courts in the United States. Pursuant to a previously disclosed master settlement agreement and settlement related court orders, the vast majority of the cases in the United States were resolved or dismissed. Eleven inactive cases remain pending in state courts in New Jersey. There are also eleven cases pending in Canada (four class actions and seven individual injury claims), two of which are active (the certified class actions in Quebec and Ontario). 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. In February 2018, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ordered all the federal Onglyza* 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 were pending in the MDL, with others pending in a coordinated proceeding in California Superior Court in San Francisco ("JCCP"). The JCCP court granted summary judgment to defendants in March 2022, a decision which was affirmed by the California Court of Appeal. The California Supreme Court declined to review the decision in July 2023. In the MDL, the court granted defendants' motion to exclude plaintiffs' only general causation expert on January 5, 2022 and granted summary judgment on August 2, 2022. The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed the decision on February 13, 2024 and the deadline to file a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court of the United States has passed. A small number of plaintiffs in other jurisdictions voluntarily dismissed their claims, and related tolling agreements have expired. 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 Celgene Securities Litigations 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 NDA for Zeposia. 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 plaintiffs' 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. In November 2020, the Court granted class certification with respect to the remaining claims. In March 2023, the Court granted the defendants leave to file a motion for summary judgment, the briefing for which was completed in June 2023. On September 8, 2023, the Court granted in part and denied in part defendants' motion for summary judgment as to the claims regarding statements made by the remaining officer defendants. As to the claims regarding Celgene’s corporate statements, the Court denied the defendants’ motion without prejudice and granted the defendants leave to re-raise the issue. On October 27, 2023, the defendants filed a motion for partial summary judgment as to Celgene’s corporate statements. On July 23, 2024, the Court granted the defendants’ motion as to individual liability for those corporate statements but reserved decision as to the company's liability, noting that another opinion would be forthcoming. 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 (the "Schwab Action"). In July 2020, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' complaint in full. In March 2021, the Court granted in part and denied in part defendants' motion to dismiss consistent with its decision in the Celgene Securities Class Action. The California Public Employees' Retirement System in April 2021 (the "CalPERS Action"); DFA Investment Dimensions Group Inc., on behalf of certain of its funds; and American Century Mutual Funds, Inc., on behalf of certain of its funds, in July 2021 (respectively, the "DFA Action" and the "American Century Action"), and GIC Private Limited in September 2021 (the "GIC Action"), filed separate individual actions in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey asserting largely the same allegations as the Celgene Securities Class Action and the Schwab individual action against the same remaining defendants in those actions. In October 2021, these actions were consolidated for pre-trial proceedings with the Schwab Action. The Court also consolidated any future direct actions raising common questions of law and fact with the Schwab Action (the "Consolidated Schwab Action"). On October 2, 2023, defendants filed a motion for partial summary judgment in the Consolidated Schwab Action. The motion is fully briefed and currently pending before the Court. No trial dates have been scheduled in any of the above Celgene Securities Litigations. Contingent Value Rights Litigations In June 2021, an action was filed against BMS in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York asserting claims of alleged breaches of a Contingent Value Rights Agreement ("CVR Agreement") entered into in connection with the closing of BMS's acquisition of Celgene in November 2019. An entity claiming to be the successor trustee under the CVR Agreement alleges that BMS breached the CVR Agreement by allegedly failing to use "diligent efforts" to obtain FDA approval of liso-cel (Breyanzi) before a contractual milestone date, thereby allegedly avoiding a $6.4 billion potential obligation to holders of the contingent value rights governed by the CVR Agreement and by allegedly failing to permit inspection of records in response to a request by the alleged successor trustee. The plaintiff seeks damages in an amount to be determined at trial and other relief, including interest and attorneys' fees. BMS disputes the allegations. BMS filed a motion to dismiss the alleged successor trustee's complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, which was denied on June 24, 2022. On February 2, 2024, BMS filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. In October 2021, alleged former Celgene stockholders filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York asserting claims on behalf of a putative class of Celgene stockholders who received CVRs in the BMS merger with Celgene for violations of sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") relating to the joint proxy statement. That action later was consolidated with another action filed in the same court, and a consolidated complaint thereafter was filed asserting claims on behalf of a class of CVR acquirers, whether in the BMS merger with Celgene or otherwise, for violations of sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 (the "Securities Act") and sections 10(b), 14(a) and 20(2) of the Exchange Act. The complaint alleged that the February 22, 2019 joint proxy statement was materially false or misleading because it failed to disclose that BMS allegedly had no intention to obtain FDA approval for liso-cel (Breyanzi) by the applicable milestone date in the CVR Agreement and that certain statements made by BMS or certain BMS officers in periodic SEC filings, earnings calls, press releases, and investor presentations between December 2019 and November 2020 were materially false or misleading for the same reason. Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint. On March 1, 2023, the Court entered an opinion and order granting defendants' motion and dismissed the complaint in its entirety. The claims under Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act and Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act were dismissed with prejudice. The claims under Sections 10(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act were dismissed with leave to file a further amended complaint, which plaintiffs filed on April 14, 2023. Defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint and briefing on the motion was completed on June 23, 2023. In an opinion and order entered on February 29, 2024, the Court granted that motion in its entirety and dismissed the remaining claims with prejudice. On March 28, 2024, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal. In November 2021, an alleged purchaser of CVRs filed a complaint in the Supreme Court of the State of New York for New York County asserting claims on behalf of a putative class of CVR acquirers for violations of sections 11(a) and 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act of 1933. The complaint alleges that the registration statement filed in connection with the proposed merger transaction between Celgene and BMS was materially false or misleading because it failed to disclose that allegedly BMS had no intention at the time to obtain FDA approval for liso-cel (Breyanzi) by the contractual milestone date. The complaint asserts claims against BMS, the members of its board of directors at the time of the joint proxy statement, and certain BMS officers who signed the registration statement. Defendants moved to stay the action pending resolution of the federal action or, in the alternative, to dismiss the complaint and later filed a similar motion in response to an amended complaint. On February 2, 2024, the Court granted defendants’ motion and dismissed the case in its entirety. On February 29, 2024, the plaintiff filed a notice of appeal. In November 2021, an alleged Celgene stockholder filed a complaint in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Union County asserting claims on behalf of two separate putative classes, one of acquirers of CVRs and one of acquirers of BMS common stock, for violations of sections 11(a), 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act. The complaint alleges that the registration statement filed in connection with the proposed merger transaction between Celgene and BMS was materially false or misleading because it failed to disclose that allegedly BMS had no intention at the time to obtain FDA approval for liso-cel (Breyanzi) by the contractual milestone date. The complaint asserts claims against BMS, the members of its board of directors at the time of the joint proxy statement, certain BMS officers who signed the registration statement and Celgene's former chairman and chief executive officer. The Court had temporarily stayed the action pending resolution of the federal action, but lifted the stay on March 21, 2024, following the dismissal of the federal action. On April 4, 2024, defendants moved to dismiss the New Jersey complaint. On June 25, 2024, the Court granted defendants' motion and dismissed the complaint in its entirety without prejudice. No trial dates have been scheduled in any of the above CVR Litigations. OTHER LITIGATION IRA Litigation On June 16, 2023, BMS filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, et al., challenging the constitutionality of the drug-pricing program in the IRA. That program requires pharmaceutical companies, like BMS, under the threat of significant penalties, to sell certain of their medicines at government-dictated prices. On August 29, 2023, the government selected Eliquis for this program. In its lawsuit, BMS argues that this program violates the Fifth Amendment, which requires the government to pay just compensation if it takes property for public use, by requiring pharmaceutical manufacturers to provide medicines to third parties at prices set by the government that necessarily fall below fair market value. BMS also argues that this program violates the First Amendment right to free speech by requiring manufacturers to state that they agree that the price set by the government is the medicine's "maximum fair price" as determined by negotiation, even though there is no true negotiation. On August 16, 2023, BMS filed a motion for summary judgment. On October 16, 2023, the government filed an opposition to BMS’s motion for summary judgment and a cross-motion for summary judgment. The court heard oral argument on the parties' summary judgment motions on March 7, 2024. On April 29, 2024, the court issued an opinion and order that denied BMS's motion for summary judgment and granted the government's cross-motion for summary judgment. BMS appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit and briefing on the appeal is scheduled to be completed by October 2, 2024. Thalomid and Revlimid Litigations 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, sought injunctive relief and damages. The various lawsuits were consolidated into a master action for all purposes. In March 2020, Celgene reached a settlement with the class plaintiffs. In October 2020, the Court entered a final order approving the settlement and dismissed the matter. That settlement did not resolve certain claims of certain entities that opted out of the settlement, and who have since filed new suits advancing related theories. As described below, certain other consolidated or coordinated suits are pending. In March 2019, Humana Inc. ("Humana"), which opted out of the above settlement, filed a lawsuit against Celgene in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. Humana's complaint makes largely the same claims and allegations as were made in the now settled Thalomid and Revlimid antitrust class action litigation. 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. In May 2019, Celgene filed a motion to dismiss Humana's complaint. In April 2022, the Court issued an order denying Celgene's motion to dismiss. That order addressed only Celgene's argument that certain of Humana's claims were barred by the statute of limitations. The Court's order did not address Celgene's other grounds for dismissal and instead directed Celgene to present those arguments in a renewed motion to dismiss following the filing of amended complaints. In May 2022, Humana filed an amended complaint against Celgene and BMS asserting the same claims based on additional factual allegations. Celgene and BMS subsequently filed a motion to dismiss Humana's amended complaint. On August 18, and September 8, 2023, the Court held argument on Celgene and BMS' motion. On June 6, 2024, the Court granted Celgene and BMS's motion to dismiss in its entirety. The Court granted Humana and the other plaintiffs referenced immediately below (other than United HealthCare Services Inc. ("UHS"), which had previously amended) leave to amend their complaints, with any amended complaint to be filed by August 5, 2024. UHS, Blue Cross Blue Shield Association ("BCBSM"), BCBSM Inc., Health Care Service Corporation ("HCSC"), Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Florida Inc., Cigna Corporation ("Cigna"), Molina Healthcare, Inc. ("Molina") and several MSP related entities (MSP Recovery Claims, Series LLC; MSPA Claims 1, LLC; MAO-MSO Recovery II, LLC, Series PMPI, a segregated series of MAO-MSO Recovery II, LLC; MSP Recovery Claims Series 44, LLC; MSP Recovery Claims PROV, Series LLC; and MSP Recovery Claims CAID, Series LLC (together, "MSP")) filed lawsuits between 2020 and 2022 making largely the same claims and allegations as were made in the now-settled class action litigation and in the Humana opt-out action. The UHS and MSP matters include additional claims related to copay assistance for Thalomid and Revlimid. These cases are now pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. BCBSM has voluntarily dismissed its claims. The Court's order granting Celgene and BMS's motion to dismiss in the Humana action dismissed the complaints filed by these plaintiffs as well (except as to UHS, which has already been amended). The Court granted these plaintiffs leave to amend all dismissed claims, with the exception of MSP's claims under RICO, which were dismissed with prejudice. Any amended complaint must be filed by August 5, 2024. In May 2021, Molina sued Celgene and BMS in San Francisco Superior Court. Molina's complaint makes largely the same claims and allegations as were made in the now settled class action litigation. In June 2022, the San Francisco Superior Court dismissed 63 of Molina’s claims, which Molina later reasserted in the District of New Jersey as described above, and stayed the remaining 4 claims. No activity is expected in this case until disposition of the New Jersey actions. Certain other entities that opted out of the now‑settled class action have also filed summonses related to two actions in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas in connection with the allegations made by Humana and other opt‑out entities. Those actions have been placed in deferred status pending further developments in the above opt‑out cases. In November 2022, certain specialty pharmacies filed an action as direct purchasers against Celgene, BMS, and certain generic manufacturers in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. The action makes largely the same claims and allegations against Celgene and BMS as were made with respect to Revlimid in the now settled class action litigation, and seek injunctive relief and damages under the Sherman Antitrust Act. Also in November 2022, a putative class of end-payor plaintiffs filed an action against Celgene, BMS, and certain generic manufacturers in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. The class complaint brings claims based on Celgene's allegedly anticompetitive settlements of Revlimid patent litigation, seeking damages under state antitrust and consumer protection laws and injunctive relief under federal antitrust law. Celgene, BMS and the generic defendants have filed consolidated motions to dismiss these two actions. The motions were fully briefed in May 2023 and administratively terminated in November 2023 pending a ruling on Celgene and BMS's motion to dismiss the Humana amended complaint. In view of the Court's dismissal decision in the Humana action described above, these plaintiffs have stated that they will seek leave to file amended complaints by August 5, 2024. No trial dates have been scheduled. In October and November 2023, three healthcare systems—the Mayo Clinic, LifePoint Corporate Services, G.P. and Intermountain Health, Inc.—filed two new lawsuits against Celgene, BMS and certain generic manufacturers making largely the same claims and allegations against Celgene and BMS as were made with respect to Revlimid in the now-settled class action litigation, and seeking injunctive relief and damages under the Sherman Antitrust Act and parallel state laws. In view of the Court's dismissal decision in the Humana action described above, these plaintiffs have stated that they will file amended complaints by August 5, 2024. Those actions are pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. No trial dates have been scheduled. MSK Contract Litigation On April 1, 2022, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center and Eureka Therapeutics, Inc. (collectively, "Plaintiffs") filed a complaint against BMS, Celgene and Juno (collectively, "Defendants"). In June 2022, Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants breached a license agreement by allegedly failing to use commercially reasonable efforts to develop, manufacture, and commercialize a certain chimeric antigen receptor product and by failing to pay Plaintiffs a running royalty of at least 1.5% of worldwide sales of Abecma allegedly owed to Plaintiffs under the license agreement. Defendants disagree with plaintiffs' claims, and filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint in July 2022. On January 24, 2024, the Court granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss as to BMS and Celgene, removing them from the case. On July 22, 2024, Defendants entered into a confidential settlement of this matter with Plaintiffs, pursuant to which all claims in the litigation are to be dismissed. Pomalyst Antitrust Class Action In September 2023, certain health plan entities filed an action on behalf of a putative class of end-payor plaintiffs against Celgene, BMS, and certain generic pharmaceutical manufacturers in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The class complaint asserts claims under federal antitrust law and state antitrust, consumer protection, and unjust enrichment laws based on allegations that Celgene and BMS engaged in anticompetitive conduct related to pomalidomide in the U.S., including by allegedly engaging in fraud before the USPTO in the acquisition of patents related to the use of pomalidomide, by filing alleged sham patent litigations against generic pharmaceutical companies seeking to market generic pomalidomide, and by entering into allegedly unlawful patent litigation settlements with certain generic pharmaceutical companies seeking to market generic pomalidomide. In December 2023, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint that added one individual Pomalyst patient as a plaintiff, removed the generic manufacturer defendants, and added two individuals as defendants. In March 2024, one new plaintiff filed a substantially similar complaint, on behalf of the same putative class and in the same court, which was subsequently consolidated with the first action. In March 2024, BMS and its co-defendants filed motions to dismiss these actions. No trial dates have been scheduled. 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 and Other Remediation Matters With respect to CERCLA and other remediation matters for which BMS is responsible under various state, federal and international 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 million as of June 30, 2024, 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, partners, suppliers, service providers, licensees, licensors, 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 claims and/or 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 successfully 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 Ireland, the court granted our request for a preliminary injunction prohibiting Teva from making, offering, putting on the market and/or using and/or importing or stocking for the aforesaid purposes, generic Eliquis products. The trial court's preliminary injunction decision was subsequently affirmed on appeal by the Irish Court of Appeal. In a decision delivered on December 8, 2023, the Irish trial court found the Irish composition-of-matter patent and related SPC to be invalid. BMS appealed the Irish trial court's decision. On June 13, 2024, the Irish Court of Appeal entered an injunction restraining Teva from launching its generic product pending the determination of BMS's appeal of the trial court's invalidity decision.

In the Netherlands, our requests for preliminary injunctions to prevent at-risk generic launches by Sandoz, Stada and Teva prior to full trials on the validity of the Dutch composition-of-matter patent and SPC were initially denied by the lower courts. However, in a judgment issued on August 15, 2023, the Dutch Court of Appeal overturned the decisions of the lower court, issued preliminary injunctions against Sandoz, Stada and Teva and ordered those companies to recall any generic Eliquis product from the Dutch market. Trials regarding challenges brought by Sandoz and Teva, respectively, to the validity of the Dutch composition-of-matter patent and related SPC took place on October 13, 2023 and January 12, 2024, and decisions are pending.

In Portugal, there are patent validity and infringement proceedings pending with multiple companies seeking to market generic versions of Eliquis. A trial regarding Mylan's challenge to the validity of the Portuguese composition-of-matter patent began in February 2024 and is ongoing. In early September 2023, Teva launched a generic Eliquis product on the Portuguese market. On September 15, 2023, the Company filed a request for a preliminary injunction against Teva at the Portuguese Intellectual Property Court. The hearing of the preliminary injunction against Teva is ongoing.

In Spain, a trial regarding Teva's challenge to the validity of the Spanish composition-of-matter patent and related SPC was held on October 18-19, 2023, and in a decision delivered in January 2024, the Barcelona Commercial Court found the Spanish composition-of-matter patent and related SPC to be invalid. BMS appealed the decision of the Barcelona Commercial Court to the Barcelona Court of Appeal. In February 2024, the Madrid Commercial Court granted BMS’s preliminary injunctions against Teva, Sandoz and Normon pending determination of the appeal of the decision of the Barcelona Commercial Court. Teva sought an order from the Barcelona Commercial Court to effectively overturn the preliminary injunction. BMS then sought and was granted an order from the Madrid Commercial Court requiring Teva to comply with the preliminary injunction. The issue was referred to the Spanish Supreme Court, which on April 26, 2024 issued a judgment requiring the Madrid Commercial Court to lift the injunction in place against Teva. On July 16, 2024, the Madrid Commercial Court issued a decision maintaining the preliminary injunctions against Sandoz and Normon. In a decision dated July 18, 2024, the Barcelona Court of Appeal overturned the decision of the Barcelona Commercial Court and upheld the validity of the Spanish composition-of-matter patent and related SPC.

In the UK, Sandoz and Teva filed lawsuits seeking revocation of the UK composition-of-matter patent and related SPC. BMS subsequently filed counterclaims for infringement in both actions. A combined trial took place in February 2022, and in a judgment issued on April 7, 2022, the judge found the UK apixaban composition-of-matter patent and related SPC invalid. BMS appealed the judgment and on May 4, 2023, the Court of Appeal upheld the lower court's decision. On October 31, 2023, the UK Supreme Court rejected BMS's application to appeal. Following the first instance decision in the UK, generic manufacturers have begun marketing generic versions of Eliquis in the UK.

BMS received Notice Letters from Accord Healthcare, Inc. ("Accord"), MSN Laboratories Private Limited ("MSN"), Teva Pharmaceuticals, Inc. ("Teva") and Natco Pharma Limited ("Natco"), respectively, each notifying BMS that it has filed an ANDA containing a paragraph IV certification seeking approval of a generic version of Onureg in the U.S. and challenging U.S. Patent Nos. 11,571,436 (the "'436 Patent") and 8,846,628 (the "'628 Patent"), FDA Orange Book-listed formulation patents covering Onureg, which expire in 2029 and 2030, respectively. In response, BMS filed a patent infringement action against Accord, MSN, Teva and Natco in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. BMS subsequently entered into confidential settlement agreements with each of Accord, MSN, Teva and Natco, and the cases against each have been dismissed.

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. 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 ($298 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 and an appeal hearing concluded in February 2021. On June 26, 2023, the appeal court issued a ruling in BMS and Sanofi's favor, upholding the lower court's decision. In December 2023, the Australian government was granted leave to appeal the decision to the High Court of Australia, and the High Court scheduled an appeal hearing for September 4-6, 2024.

BMS and certain Sanofi entities are defendants in a consumer protection action brought by the attorney general of Hawaii relating to the labeling, sales and/or promotion of Plavix*. In February 2021, a Hawaii state court judge issued a decision against Sanofi and BMS, imposing penalties in the total amount of $834 million, with $417 million attributed to BMS. Sanofi and BMS appealed the decision. On March 15, 2023, the Hawaii Supreme Court issued its decision, reversing in part and affirming in part the trial court decision, vacating the penalty award and remanding the case for a new trial and penalty determination. A new bench trial concluded on October 16, 2023. On May 21, 2024, the trial court issued a new decision against Sanofi and BMS, imposing penalties in the total amount of $916 million, with $458 million attributed to BMS. Sanofi and BMS will appeal the decision.

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. Cases were filed in state and federal courts in the United States. Pursuant to a previously disclosed master settlement agreement and settlement related court orders, the vast majority of the cases in the United States were resolved or dismissed. Eleven inactive cases remain pending in state courts in New Jersey. There are also eleven cases pending in Canada (four class actions and seven individual injury claims), two of which are active (the certified class actions in Quebec and Ontario).

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*. In February 2018, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ordered all the federal Onglyza* 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 were pending in the MDL, with others pending in a coordinated proceeding in California Superior Court in San Francisco ("JCCP"). The JCCP court granted summary judgment to defendants in March 2022, a decision which was affirmed by the California Court of Appeal. The California Supreme Court declined to review the decision in July 2023. In the MDL, the court granted defendants' motion to exclude plaintiffs' only general causation expert on January 5, 2022 and granted summary judgment on August 2, 2022. The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed the decision on February 13, 2024 and the deadline to file a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court of the United States has passed. A small number of plaintiffs in other jurisdictions voluntarily dismissed their claims, and related tolling agreements have expired. 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.

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 NDA for Zeposia. 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 plaintiffs' 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. In November 2020, the Court granted class certification with respect to the remaining claims. In March 2023, the Court granted the defendants leave to file a motion for summary judgment, the briefing for which was completed in June 2023. On September 8, 2023, the Court granted in part and denied in part defendants' motion for summary judgment as to the claims regarding statements made by the remaining officer defendants. As to the claims regarding Celgene’s corporate statements, the Court denied the defendants’ motion without prejudice and granted the defendants leave to re-raise the issue. On October 27, 2023, the defendants filed a motion for partial summary judgment as to Celgene’s corporate statements. On July 23, 2024, the Court granted the defendants’ motion as to individual liability for those corporate statements but reserved decision as to the company's liability, noting that another opinion would be forthcoming.

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 (the "Schwab Action"). In July 2020, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' complaint in full. In March 2021, the Court granted in part and denied in part defendants' motion to dismiss consistent with its decision in the Celgene Securities Class Action.

The California Public Employees' Retirement System in April 2021 (the "CalPERS Action"); DFA Investment Dimensions Group Inc., on behalf of certain of its funds; and American Century Mutual Funds, Inc., on behalf of certain of its funds, in July 2021 (respectively, the "DFA Action" and the "American Century Action"), and GIC Private Limited in September 2021 (the "GIC Action"), filed separate individual actions in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey asserting largely the same allegations as the Celgene Securities Class Action and the Schwab individual action against the same remaining defendants in those actions. In October 2021, these actions were consolidated for pre-trial proceedings with the Schwab Action. The Court also consolidated any future direct actions raising common questions of law and fact with the Schwab Action (the "Consolidated Schwab Action"). On October 2, 2023, defendants filed a motion for partial summary judgment in the Consolidated Schwab Action. The motion is fully briefed and currently pending before the Court.

In June 2021, an action was filed against BMS in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York asserting claims of alleged breaches of a Contingent Value Rights Agreement ("CVR Agreement") entered into in connection with the closing of BMS's acquisition of Celgene in November 2019. An entity claiming to be the successor trustee under the CVR Agreement alleges that BMS breached the CVR Agreement by allegedly failing to use "diligent efforts" to obtain FDA approval of liso-cel (Breyanzi) before a contractual milestone date, thereby allegedly avoiding a $6.4 billion potential obligation to holders of the contingent value rights governed by the CVR Agreement and by allegedly failing to permit inspection of records in response to a request by the alleged successor trustee. The plaintiff seeks damages in an amount to be determined at trial and other relief, including interest and attorneys' fees. BMS disputes the allegations. BMS filed a motion to dismiss the alleged successor trustee's complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, which was denied on June 24, 2022. On February 2, 2024, BMS filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

In October 2021, alleged former Celgene stockholders filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York asserting claims on behalf of a putative class of Celgene stockholders who received CVRs in the BMS merger with Celgene for violations of sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") relating to the joint proxy statement. That action later was consolidated with another action filed in the same court, and a consolidated complaint thereafter was filed asserting claims on behalf of a class of CVR acquirers, whether in the BMS merger with Celgene or otherwise, for violations of sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 (the "Securities Act") and sections 10(b), 14(a) and 20(2) of the Exchange Act. The complaint alleged that the February 22, 2019 joint proxy statement was materially false or misleading because it failed to disclose that BMS allegedly had no intention to obtain FDA approval for liso-cel (Breyanzi) by the applicable milestone date in the CVR Agreement and that certain statements made by BMS or certain BMS officers in periodic SEC filings, earnings calls, press releases, and investor presentations between December 2019 and November 2020 were materially false or misleading for the same reason. Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint. On March 1, 2023, the Court entered an opinion and order granting defendants' motion and dismissed the complaint in its entirety. The claims under Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act and Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act were dismissed with prejudice. The claims under Sections 10(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act were dismissed with leave to file a further amended complaint, which plaintiffs filed on April 14, 2023. Defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint and briefing on the motion was completed on June 23, 2023. In an opinion and order entered on February 29, 2024, the Court granted that motion in its entirety and dismissed the remaining claims with prejudice. On March 28, 2024, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal.

In November 2021, an alleged purchaser of CVRs filed a complaint in the Supreme Court of the State of New York for New York County asserting claims on behalf of a putative class of CVR acquirers for violations of sections 11(a) and 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act of 1933. The complaint alleges that the registration statement filed in connection with the proposed merger transaction between Celgene and BMS was materially false or misleading because it failed to disclose that allegedly BMS had no intention at the time to obtain FDA approval for liso-cel (Breyanzi) by the contractual milestone date. The complaint asserts claims against BMS, the members of its board of directors at the time of the joint proxy statement, and certain BMS officers who signed the registration statement. Defendants moved to stay the action pending resolution of the federal action or, in the alternative, to dismiss the complaint and later filed a similar motion in response to an amended complaint. On February 2, 2024, the Court granted defendants’ motion and dismissed the case in its entirety. On February 29, 2024, the plaintiff filed a notice of appeal.

In November 2021, an alleged Celgene stockholder filed a complaint in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Union County asserting claims on behalf of two separate putative classes, one of acquirers of CVRs and one of acquirers of BMS common stock, for violations of sections 11(a), 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act. The complaint alleges that the registration statement filed in connection with the proposed merger transaction between Celgene and BMS was materially false or misleading because it failed to disclose that allegedly BMS had no intention at the time to obtain FDA approval for liso-cel (Breyanzi) by the contractual milestone date. The complaint asserts claims against BMS, the members of its board of directors at the time of the joint proxy statement, certain BMS officers who signed the registration statement and Celgene's former chairman and chief executive officer. The Court had temporarily stayed the action pending resolution of the federal action, but lifted the stay on March 21, 2024, following the dismissal of the federal action. On April 4, 2024, defendants moved to dismiss the New Jersey complaint. On June 25, 2024, the Court granted defendants' motion and dismissed the complaint in its entirety without prejudice.

On June 16, 2023, BMS filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, et al., challenging the constitutionality of the drug-pricing program in the IRA. That program requires pharmaceutical companies, like BMS, under the threat of significant penalties, to sell certain of their medicines at government-dictated prices. On August 29, 2023, the government selected Eliquis for this program. In its lawsuit, BMS argues that this program violates the Fifth Amendment, which requires the government to pay just compensation if it takes property for public use, by requiring pharmaceutical manufacturers to provide medicines to third parties at prices set by the government that necessarily fall below fair market value. BMS also argues that this program violates the First Amendment right to free speech by requiring manufacturers to state that they agree that the price set by the government is the medicine's "maximum fair price" as determined by negotiation, even though there is no true negotiation. On August 16, 2023, BMS filed a motion for summary judgment. On October 16, 2023, the government filed an opposition to BMS’s motion for summary judgment and a cross-motion for summary judgment. The court heard oral argument on the parties' summary judgment motions on March 7, 2024. On April 29, 2024, the court issued an opinion and order that denied BMS's motion for summary judgment and granted the government's cross-motion for summary judgment. BMS appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit and briefing on the appeal is scheduled to be completed by October 2, 2024.

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, sought injunctive relief and damages. The various lawsuits were consolidated into a master action for all purposes. In March 2020, Celgene reached a settlement with the class plaintiffs. In October 2020, the Court entered a final order approving the settlement and dismissed the matter. That settlement did not resolve certain claims of certain entities that opted out of the settlement, and who have since filed new suits advancing related theories. As described below, certain other consolidated or coordinated suits are pending.

In March 2019, Humana Inc. ("Humana"), which opted out of the above settlement, filed a lawsuit against Celgene in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. Humana's complaint makes largely the same claims and allegations as were made in the now settled Thalomid and Revlimid antitrust class action litigation. 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. In May 2019, Celgene filed a motion to dismiss Humana's complaint. In April 2022, the Court issued an order denying Celgene's motion to dismiss. That order addressed only Celgene's argument that certain of Humana's claims were barred by the statute of limitations. The Court's order did not address Celgene's other grounds for dismissal and instead directed Celgene to present those arguments in a renewed motion to dismiss following the filing of amended complaints. In May 2022, Humana filed an amended complaint against Celgene and BMS asserting the same claims based on additional factual allegations. Celgene and BMS subsequently filed a motion to dismiss Humana's amended complaint. On August 18, and September 8, 2023, the Court held argument on Celgene and BMS' motion. On June 6, 2024, the Court granted Celgene and BMS's motion to dismiss in its entirety. The Court granted Humana and the other plaintiffs referenced immediately below (other than United HealthCare Services Inc. ("UHS"), which had previously amended) leave to amend their complaints, with any amended complaint to be filed by August 5, 2024.

UHS, Blue Cross Blue Shield Association ("BCBSM"), BCBSM Inc., Health Care Service Corporation ("HCSC"), Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Florida Inc., Cigna Corporation ("Cigna"), Molina Healthcare, Inc. ("Molina") and several MSP related entities (MSP Recovery Claims, Series LLC; MSPA Claims 1, LLC; MAO-MSO Recovery II, LLC, Series PMPI, a segregated series of MAO-MSO Recovery II, LLC; MSP Recovery Claims Series 44, LLC; MSP Recovery Claims PROV, Series LLC; and MSP Recovery Claims CAID, Series LLC (together, "MSP")) filed lawsuits between 2020 and 2022 making largely the same claims and allegations as were made in the now-settled class action litigation and in the Humana opt-out action. The UHS and MSP matters include additional claims related to copay assistance for Thalomid and Revlimid. These cases are now pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. BCBSM has voluntarily dismissed its claims. The Court's order granting Celgene and BMS's motion to dismiss in the Humana action dismissed the complaints filed by these plaintiffs as well (except as to UHS, which has already been amended). The Court granted these plaintiffs leave to amend all dismissed claims, with the exception of MSP's claims under RICO, which were dismissed with prejudice. Any amended complaint must be filed by August 5, 2024.

In November 2022, certain specialty pharmacies filed an action as direct purchasers against Celgene, BMS, and certain generic manufacturers in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. The action makes largely the same claims and allegations against Celgene and BMS as were made with respect to Revlimid in the now settled class action litigation, and seek injunctive relief and damages under the Sherman Antitrust Act. Also in November 2022, a putative class of end-payor plaintiffs filed an action against Celgene, BMS, and certain generic manufacturers in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. The class complaint brings claims based on Celgene's allegedly anticompetitive settlements of Revlimid patent litigation, seeking damages under state antitrust and consumer protection laws and injunctive relief under federal antitrust law. Celgene, BMS and the generic defendants have filed consolidated motions to dismiss these two actions. The motions were fully briefed in May 2023 and administratively terminated in November 2023 pending a ruling on Celgene and BMS's motion to dismiss the Humana amended complaint. In view of the Court's

In October and November 2023, three healthcare systems—the Mayo Clinic, LifePoint Corporate Services, G.P. and Intermountain Health, Inc.—filed two new lawsuits against Celgene, BMS and certain generic manufacturers making largely the same claims and allegations against Celgene and BMS as were made with respect to Revlimid in the now-settled class action litigation, and seeking injunctive relief and damages under the Sherman Antitrust Act and parallel state laws. In view of the Court's dismissal decision in the Humana action described above, these plaintiffs have stated that they will file amended complaints by August 5, 2024. Those actions are pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. No trial dates have been scheduled.

On April 1, 2022, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center and Eureka Therapeutics, Inc. (collectively, "Plaintiffs") filed a complaint against BMS, Celgene and Juno (collectively, "Defendants"). In June 2022, Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants breached a license agreement by allegedly failing to use commercially reasonable efforts to develop, manufacture, and commercialize a certain chimeric antigen receptor product and by failing to pay Plaintiffs a running royalty of at least 1.5% of worldwide sales of Abecma allegedly owed to Plaintiffs under the license agreement. Defendants disagree with plaintiffs' claims, and filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint in July 2022. On January 24, 2024, the Court granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss as to BMS and Celgene, removing them from the case. On July 22, 2024, Defendants entered into a confidential settlement of this matter with Plaintiffs, pursuant to which all claims in the litigation are to be dismissed.

In September 2023, certain health plan entities filed an action on behalf of a putative class of end-payor plaintiffs against Celgene, BMS, and certain generic pharmaceutical manufacturers in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The class complaint asserts claims under federal antitrust law and state antitrust, consumer protection, and unjust enrichment laws based on allegations that Celgene and BMS engaged in anticompetitive conduct related to pomalidomide in the U.S., including by allegedly engaging in fraud before the USPTO in the acquisition of patents related to the use of pomalidomide, by filing alleged sham patent litigations against generic pharmaceutical companies seeking to market generic pomalidomide, and by entering into allegedly unlawful patent litigation settlements with certain generic pharmaceutical companies seeking to market generic pomalidomide. In December 2023, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint that added one individual Pomalyst patient as a plaintiff, removed the generic manufacturer defendants, and added two individuals as defendants. In March 2024, one new plaintiff filed a substantially similar complaint, on behalf of the same putative class and in the same court, which was subsequently consolidated with the first action. In March 2024, BMS and its co-defendants filed motions to dismiss these actions. No trial dates have been scheduled.

With respect to CERCLA and other remediation matters for which BMS is responsible under various state, federal and international 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 million as of June 30, 2024, 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.