In view of the inherent difficulties of predicting the outcome of various types of legal proceedings, we cannot determine the ultimate resolution of the matters described below. We establish reserves for litigation and regulatory matters when losses associated with the claims become probable and the amounts can be reasonably estimated. The actual costs of resolving legal matters may be substantially higher or lower than the amounts reserved for those matters. For matters where the likelihood or extent of a loss is not probable or cannot be reasonably estimated as of July 1, 2023, we have not recorded a loss reserve. If certain of these matters are determined against us, there could be a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations, or cash flows. We currently believe we have valid defenses to the claims in these lawsuits and intend to defend these lawsuits vigorously regardless of whether or not we have a loss reserve. Other than what is disclosed below, we do not expect the outcome of the litigation matters to which we are currently subject to, individually or in the aggregate, have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations, or cash flows.

Beginning in 2016, the Company, along with other manufacturers, was named as a defendant in lawsuits in the United States and Canada generally alleging anticompetitive conduct with respect to the sale of generic drugs by the Company’s former Rx business. The complaints – which have been filed by putative classes of direct purchasers, end payors, and indirect resellers, as well as individual direct and indirect purchasers and certain cities and counties – allege a conspiracy to fix, maintain, stabilize, and/or raise prices, rig bids, and allocate markets or customers for various generic drugs in violation of federal and state antitrust and consumer protection laws. While most of the complaints involve alleged single-drug conspiracy, the three putative classes have each filed an over-arching conspiracy complaint alleging that Perrigo and other manufacturers (and some individuals) entered into an “overarching conspiracy” that involved allocating customers, rigging bids, and raising, maintaining, and fixing prices for various products. The vast majority of the lawsuits described in this paragraph have been consolidated in the generic pricing multidistrict litigation ("MDL") MDL No. 2724 (United States District Court for Eastern District of Pennsylvania).

While the Court has ordered that the class actions alleging “single drug” conspiracies involving Clobetasol will proceed on a more expedited basis (as a bellwether) than the other cases in MDL No. 2724, the classes voluntarily dismissed their claims against Perrigo relating to "single drug" conspiracies involving Clobetasol in May 2023. The Court also ordered that the State Attorney General Complaint (described below) will proceed as a bellwether case. The bellwether cases are proceeding in discovery, which must be completed by October 2, 2023 under the schedule set by the Court, and motions for summary judgment will be due on June 28, 2024. No trial dates have been set for any of the bellwether cases, or any of the other cases in the MDL.

On June 10, 2020, the Connecticut Attorney General’s office filed a lawsuit on behalf of Connecticut and 50 other states and territories against Perrigo, 35 generic pharmaceutical manufacturers, and certain individuals (including two former Perrigo employees), alleging an overarching conspiracy to allocate customers and/or fix, raise, or stabilize prices of eighty products. This case is included among the “bellwether cases” designated to follow the expedited schedule described above. Like the other cases in the MDL, no trial date has been set for this case.

In June 2020, an end payor filed a class action in Ontario, Canada against Perrigo and 29 manufacturers alleging an overarching conspiracy to allocate customers and/or fix, raise, or stabilize prices of dozens of products, most of which were neither made nor sold by Perrigo's former Rx business. The product conspiracies allegedly involving Perrigo focus on the same products as those involved in other MDL complaints naming Perrigo: Clobetasol, Desonide, Econazole, and Nystatin. In December 2020, Plaintiffs amended their complaint to add additional claims based on the State Attorney General Complaint of June 2020.

Beginning in May 2016, purported class action complaints were filed against the Company and our former CEO, Joseph Papa, in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey (Roofers’ Pension Fund v. Papa, et al.) purporting to represent a class of shareholders for the period from April 21, 2015 through May 11, 2016, inclusive. The original complaint alleged violations of federal securities laws in connection with the actions taken by us and the former executive to defend against the unsolicited takeover bid by Mylan in the period from April 21, 2015 through November 13, 2015. The plaintiff also alleged that the defendants provided inadequate disclosure concerning alleged business developments during the alleged class period including integration problems related to the Omega acquisition.

The operative complaint is the first amended complaint filed on June 21, 2017, and named as defendants us and 11 current or former directors and officers of Perrigo (Mses. Judy Brown, Laurie Brlas, Jacqualyn Fouse, Ellen Hoffing, and Messrs. Joe Papa, Marc Coucke, Gary Cohen, Michael Jandernoa, Gerald Kunkle, Herman Morris, and Donal O’Connor). The amended complaint alleges violations of federal securities laws arising out of the actions taken by us and the former directors and executives to defend against the unsolicited takeover bid by Mylan in the period from April 21, 2015 through November 13, 2015 and the allegedly inadequate disclosure throughout the entire class period related to the business developments during that longer period (April 2015 to May 2017) including purported integration problems related to the Omega acquisition, alleges incorrect reporting of organic growth at the Company and at Omega, alleges price fixing activities with respect to six generic prescription pharmaceuticals, and alleges improper accounting for the Tysabri® royalty stream. During 2017, the defendants filed motions to dismiss, which the plaintiffs opposed. On July 27, 2018, the court issued an opinion and order granting the defendants’ motions to

dismiss in part and denying the motions to dismiss in part. The court dismissed without prejudice defendants Laurie Brlas, Jacqualyn Fouse, Ellen Hoffing, Gary Cohen, Michael Jandernoa, Gerald Kunkle, Herman Morris, Donal O’Connor, and Marc Coucke. The court also dismissed without prejudice claims arising from the Tysabri® accounting issue described above and claims alleging incorrect disclosure of organic growth described above. The defendants who were not dismissed are the Company, Joe Papa, and Judy Brown. The claims (described above) that were not dismissed relate to the integration issue regarding the Omega acquisition, the defense against the Mylan tender offer, and the alleged price fixing activities with respect to six generic prescription pharmaceuticals. The defendants who remain in the case (us, Mr. Papa, and Ms. Brown) have filed answers denying liability.

On November 14, 2019, the court granted the lead plaintiffs’ motion and certified three classes for the case: (i) all those who purchased shares between April 21, 2015 through May 2, 2017 inclusive on a U.S. exchange and were damaged thereby; (ii) all those who purchased shares between April 21, 2015 through May 2, 2017 inclusive on the Tel Aviv exchange and were damaged thereby; and (iii) all those who owned shares as of November 12, 2015 and held such stock through at least 8:00 a.m. on November 13, 2015 (whether or not a person tendered shares in response to the Mylan tender offer) (the "tender offer class"). Plaintiffs' counsels have sent notices to the alleged classes.

The parties took discovery from 2018 through 2020. After discovery ended, defendants filed motions for summary judgement and to exclude plaintiffs' experts, which were fully briefed. The case was then re-assigned to a new federal judge, who heard oral argument on the motions in April 2022. In July 2023 the court reassigned the case to another federal judge. The motions are pending. We intend to defend the lawsuit vigorously.


Case			Date Filed
Carmignac Gestion, S.A. v. Perrigo Company plc, et al.			11/1/2017
First Manhattan Co. v. Perrigo Company plc, et al.			2/16/2018; amended 4/20/2018
Nationwide Mutual Funds, et al. v. Perrigo Company plc, et al.			10/29/2018
Schwab Capital Trust, et al. v. Perrigo Company plc, et al.			1/31/2019
Aberdeen Canada Funds -- Global Equity Fund, et al. v. Perrigo Company plc, et al.			2/22/2019
Principal Funds, Inc., et al. v. Perrigo Company plc, et al.			3/5/2020
Kuwait Investment Authority, et al. v. Perrigo Company plc, et al.			3/31/2020
Mason Capital L.P., et al. v. Perrigo Company plc, et al.			1/26/2018
Pentwater Equity Opportunities Master Fund Ltd., et al. v. Perrigo Company plc, et al.			1/26/2018
WCM Alternatives: Event-Drive Fund, et al. v. Perrigo Co., plc, et al.			11/15/2018
Hudson Bay Master Fund Ltd., et al. v. Perrigo Co., plc, et al.			11/15/2018
Discovery Global Citizens Master Fund, Ltd., et al. v. Perrigo Co. plc, et al.			12/18/2019
York Capital Management, L.P., et al. v. Perrigo Co. plc, et al.			12/20/2019
Burlington Loan Management DAC v. Perrigo Co. plc, et al.			2/12/2020
Universities Superannuation Scheme Limited v. Perrigo Co. plc, et al.			3/2/2020
Harel Insurance Company, Ltd., et al. v. Perrigo Company plc, et al.			2/13/2018
TIAA-CREF Investment Management, LLC., et al. v. Perrigo Company plc, et al.			4/20/2018
Sculptor Master Fund (f/k/a OZ Master Fund, Ltd.), et al. v. Perrigo Company plc, et al.			2/6/2019
BlackRock Global Allocation Fund, Inc., et al. v. Perrigo Co. plc, et al.			4/21/2020
Starboard Value and Opportunity C LP, et al. v. Perrigo Company plc, et al.			2/25/2021

In June 2020, three Highfields Capital entities filed a lawsuit in Massachusetts State Court with factual allegations that generally were similar to the factual allegations in the Amended Complaint in the Roofers' Pension Fund case described above, except that the Highfields plaintiffs did not include allegations about alleged collusive pricing of generic prescription drugs, and alleged Massachusetts state law claims under the Massachusetts Unfair Business

Methods Law (chapter 93A) and Massachusetts common law claims of tortious interference with prospective economic advantage, common law fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and unjust enrichment. In December 2021, the Massachusetts State Court granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss in part and denied it in part. Defendants’ filed their answers in January 2022 denying liability. The discovery phase in this case is underway (including discovery related to some factual allegations that were not part of the discovery in the actions in New Jersey federal court). The Court held a discovery conference and approved fact discovery deadlines into May 2023 and later deadlines to complete expert discovery. Subsequently, the Court held a further conference in March 2023 and revised the schedule with fact discovery ending in October 2023 and expert discovery in May 2024. We intend to defend the lawsuit vigorously.

On June 28, 2017, a plaintiff filed a complaint in Tel Aviv District Court styled Israel Elec. Corp. Employees’ Educ. Fund v. Perrigo Company plc, et al. The lead plaintiff seeks to represent a class of shareholders who purchased Perrigo stock on the Tel Aviv exchange during the period from April 24, 2015 through May 3, 2017 and also a claim for those that owned shares on the final day of the Mylan tender offer (November 13, 2015). The complaint names as defendants the Company, Ernst & Young LLP (the Company’s auditor), and 11 current or former directors and officers of Perrigo (Mses. Judy Brown, Laurie Brlas, Jacqualyn Fouse, Ellen Hoffing, and Messrs. Joe Papa, Marc Coucke, Gary Cohen, Michael Jandernoa, Gerald Kunkle, Herman Morris, and Donal O’Connor). The complaint alleges violations under Israeli securities laws that are similar to U.S. Securities Exchange Act sections 10(b) (and Rule 10b‑5) and 14(e) against all defendants and 20(a) control person liability against the 11 individuals or, in the alternative, under other Israeli securities laws. In general, the allegations in Israel are similar to the factual allegations in the Roofers' Pension Fund case in the U.S. as described above. The plaintiff indicates an initial, preliminary class damages estimate of 2.7 billion NIS (approximately $760.0 million at 1 NIS = 0.28 cents). After the other two cases filed in Israel were voluntarily dismissed, the plaintiff in this case agreed to stay this case pending the outcome of the Roofers’ Pension Fund case in the U.S. (described above). The Israeli court approved the stay, and this case is now stayed. We intend to defend the lawsuit vigorously.

On December 31, 2018, a shareholder filed an action against the Company, our former CEO Murray Kessler, and our former CFO Ronald Winowiecki in Tel Aviv District Court (Baton v. Perrigo Company plc, et. al.). The case is a securities class action brought in Israel making similar factual allegations for the same period as those asserted in a securities class action case (for those who purchased on a U.S. exchange) in New York federal court in which the settlement received final approval in February 2022. The Baron case alleges that persons who purchased securities through the Tel Aviv stock exchange and suffered damages can assert claims under Israeli securities law that will follow the liability principles of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act. The plaintiff does not provide an estimate of class damages. Since 2019, the court granted several requests by Perrigo to stay the proceedings pending the resolution of proceedings in the New York federal court. During 2022, the case was reassigned to a newly-appointed judge. After the settlement of the U.S. case in New York federal court, Perrigo's counsel informed the Israeli Court of the final approval of the settlement of the U.S. case. The parties then sought further stays of the case while they attempted mediation, which the Court granted. In April 2023, the parties reported to the Court that the mediation had led to a preliminary agreement on settlement; the Court set a deadline for the parties to file settlement papers, which was later extended to August 17, 2023.

The Company has been named, together with other manufacturers, in product liability lawsuits in a variety of state courts alleging that the use of body powder products containing talcum powder causes mesothelioma and lung cancer due to the presence of asbestos. All but one of these cases involve legacy talcum powder products that have not been manufactured by the Company since 1999. One of the pending actions involves a current prescription product that contains talc as an excipient. As of July 18, 2023, the Company is currently named in 92 individual lawsuits seeking compensatory and punitive damages and has accepted a tender for a portion of the defense costs and liability from a retailer for one additional matter. The Company has several defenses and intends to aggressively defend these lawsuits. Trials for these lawsuits are currently scheduled throughout 2023, 2024 and 2025, with the earliest trial date in September 2023.

After regulatory bodies announced worldwide that ranitidine may potentially contain N-nitrosodimethylamine ("NDMA"), a known environmental contaminant, the Company promptly began testing its externally-sourced ranitidine API and ranitidine-based products. On October 8, 2019, the Company halted shipments of the product based upon preliminary results and on October 23, 2019, the Company made the decision to conduct a voluntary retail market withdrawal.

In February 2020, the resulting actions involving Zantac® and other ranitidine products were transferred for coordinated pretrial proceedings to a Multi-District Litigation (In re Zantac®/Ranitidine Products Liability Litigation MDL No. 2924) in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. After the Company successfully moved to dismiss the first set of Master Complaints in the MDL, it now includes three: 1) an Amended Master Personal Injury Complaint; 2) a Consolidated Amended Consumer Economic Loss Class Action Complaint; and 3) a Consolidated Medical Monitoring Class Action Complaint. All three name the Company. Plaintiffs appealed one of the original Master Complaints, the Third-Party Payor Complaint, and two individual plaintiffs appealed their individual personal injury claims on limited grounds. The Company is not named in the appeals.

On June 30, 2021, the Court dismissed all claims against the retail and distributor defendants with prejudice, thereby reducing the Company’s potential for exposure and liability related to possible indemnification. On July 8, 2021, the Court dismissed all claims against the Company with prejudice. Appeals of these dismissal orders to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit have been filed, as well as several state level claims related to the theories advanced in the MDL litigation. The Company will continue to vigorously defend each of these lawsuits. In December 2022 the Court granted in full brand defendants Daubert motions, finding no scientific causation, and in turn granted summary judgment dismissing the actions with prejudice. The Court later ruled that it was appropriate to apply the same standards to the retail and distributor defendants as well as the generic defendants, and the Court thereby ruled that its Daubert decision applied equally to these defendants as well. Appeals of these orders have been filed to the 11th Circuit.

Excepting the MDL due to the nature of the multiple dismissals as described above, as of July 18, 2023, the Company has been named in 108 personal injury lawsuits, primarily in the state courts of California, Illinois and Pennsylvania. The Company is named in these lawsuits with manufacturers of the national brand Zantac® and other manufacturers of ranitidine products, as well as distributors, repackagers, and/or retailers. Plaintiffs seek compensatory and punitive damages, and in some instances seek applicable remedies under state consumer protection laws. The Company believes that it has strong defenses to such claims based on a significant body of scientific evidence, and pursuant to the doctrine of federal preemption. As noted above, the Company has won multiple motions to dismiss in the MDL, as well as additional state court actions in California and Maryland. The Company has also been dismissed from additional state court actions in Ohio, New York and New Jersey.

The Company has also been named in a Complaint brought by the New Mexico Attorney General based on the following theories: violation of a New Mexico public nuisance statute, NMSA 30-8-1 to -14; common law nuisance; and negligence and gross negligence. The Company is named in this lawsuit with manufacturers of the national brand Zantac® and other manufacturers of ranitidine products and/or retailers. Brand name manufactures named in the lawsuit also face claims under the state’s Unfair Practices & False Advertising acts. The Company filed motions to dismiss the action. The New Mexico District Court denied the Company’s Motion to Dismiss and litigation continues. The Company will continue to vigorously defend this lawsuit.

In October 2022 the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ("MDL") consolidated a number of pending actions filed in various federal courts alleging that prenatal exposure to acetaminophen is purportedly associated with the development of autism spectrum disorder (“ASD”) and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (“ADHD”). The MDL is styled In re: Acetaminophen – ASD/ADHD Products Liability Litigation (MDL No. 3043) and is pending before the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. Plaintiffs in the MDL have asserted claims against Johnson & Johnson Consumer, Inc. (“JJCI”) and various retailer chains alleging that plaintiff-mothers took acetaminophen products while pregnant and that plaintiff-children developed ASD and/or ADHD as a result of prenatal exposure to these acetaminophen products. At this time, the MDL proceedings are in the early stages. Currently, it is not

possible to assess reliably the outcome of these cases or any potential future financial impact on the Company. As of July 20, 2023 the Company has not been named as a defendant in any Complaints filed in the MDL. It is anticipated that some of the Company’s retailer customers may seek indemnity from the Company for a portion of their defense costs and potential liability relating to these cases.

As a result of the matters discussed in this Note, the Company has established a loss accrual for litigation contingencies where we believe a loss to be probable and for which an amount of loss can be reasonably estimated. However, we cannot determine a reasonable estimate of the maximum possible loss or range of loss for these matters given that they are at various stages of the litigation process and each case is subject to inherent uncertainties of litigation. At July 1, 2023, the loss accrual for litigation contingencies reflected on the balance sheet in Other accrued liabilities was $67.6 million. The Company also recorded an insurance recovery receivable reflected on the balance sheet in Prepaid expenses and other current assets of $35.2 million related to these litigation contingencies because it believes such amount is recoverable based on communications with its insurers to date; however, the Company may erode this insurance receivable as it incurs defense costs associated with defending the matters. The Company’s management believes these accruals for contingencies are reasonable and sufficient based upon information currently available to management; however, there can be no assurance that final costs related to these contingencies will not exceed current estimates or that all of the final costs related to these contingencies will be covered by insurance. (See "Insurance Coverage Litigation," below.) In addition, we have other litigation matters pending for which we have not recorded any accruals because our potential liability for those matters is not probable or cannot be reasonably estimated based on currently available information. For those matters where we have not recorded an accrual but a loss is reasonably possible, we cannot determine a reasonable estimate of the maximum possible loss or range of loss for these matters given that they are at various stages of the litigation process and each case is subject to the inherent uncertainties of litigation.

In May 2021, insurers on multiple policies of D&O insurance filed an action in the High Court in Dublin against the Company and multiple current and former directors and officers of the Company seeking declaratory judgments on certain coverage issues. Those coverage issues include claims that policies for periods beginning in December 2015 and December 2016, respectively, do not have to provide coverage for the securities actions described above pending in the District of New Jersey or in Massachusetts state court concerning the events of 2015-2017. The policy for the period beginning December 2014 is currently providing coverage for those matters, and the litigation would not affect that existing coverage. However, if the plaintiffs are successful, the total amount of insurance coverage available to defend such lawsuits and to satisfy any judgment or settlement costs thereunder would be limited to one policy period. The insurers’ lawsuit also challenges coverage for Krueger derivatively on behalf of nominal defendant Perrigo Company plc v. Alford et al., a prior derivative action filed in the District of New Jersey that was dismissed in August 2020, and for the counterclaims brought in the Omega arbitration proceedings. Perrigo responded on November 1, 2021; Perrigo’s response includes its position that the policies for the periods beginning December 2015 and December 2016 provide coverage for the underlying litigation matters and seeks a ruling to that effect. The discovery stage of the case occurred in 2022. The Court has set a schedule for submissions by the parties during 2023 and for a bench trial in mid-November 2023. We intend to defend the lawsuit vigorously.