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 March 30, 2024, 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 class complaints involve alleged single-drug conspiracies, the three putative classes and many of the opt out plaintiffs 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 In re Generic Pharmaceuticals Pricing Antitrust Litigation multidistrict litigation ("MDL") MDL No. 2724 (United States District Court for Eastern District of Pennsylvania).

The Court has designated three sets of cases to proceed as "bellwethers," meaning that they will proceed on a more expedited basis than the other cases in the MDL. Those cases are (a) class actions alleging "single drug" conspiracies involving Clobetasol and Clomipramine; and (b) the third Complaint filed by the State Attorneys General alleging an overarching conspiracy concerning various topical products (described below). Perrigo was initially named as a defendant in the Clobetasol class bellwether cases, but the classes voluntarily dismissed their claims against Perrigo relating to “single drug” conspiracies involving Clobetasol in May 2023. Discovery closed in the bellwether cases on October 2, 2023. Summary judgment motions in the State bellwether case are due September 23, 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. On April 19, 2024, this case was remanded from the MDL and transferred to the District of Connecticut. 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.

On June 30, 2023, a group of 150 hospitals filed a complaint against Perrigo and 35 other generic drug manufacturers alleging a conspiracy to fix, raise, or stabilize prices of 228 products. Perrigo's former Rx business made and sold 33 of these products. Most of the product conspiracies allegedly involving Perrigo focus on products that are the same as the products involved in other MDL complaints naming Perrigo. This case was transferred to the MDL on September 15, 2023 for all pre-trial proceedings.

On April 4, 2024, nine corporate employers with self-insured health and benefit plans filed a complaint against Perrigo and 35 other generic drug manufacturers alleging a conspiracy to fix, raise, or stabilize prices of scores of generic drug products, most of which were neither made nor sold by Perrigo. The allegations in this complaint, and the products at issue, parallel the allegations in other complaints in the MDL. This case is in the process of being transferred into the MDL for pretrial proceedings.

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.

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 sent notices during 2020 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. On August 17, 2023, the court granted summary judgment to Ms. Brown on all claims and dismissed her from the case; the court granted summary judgment in part to Mr. Papa terminating the claim against him that he made false statements with respect to alleged collusive pricing at the Generic Rx business. The court did not grant summary judgment on statements made about the integration of Omega during 2015. Thereafter, parties engaged in court-ordered settlement conferences.

On April 5, 2024, the class plaintiffs filed papers seeking Court approval of a settlement between the alleged classes and the defendants for $97 million. Perrigo and the remaining individual defendant agreed to the proposed settlement without any concession of liability or wrongdoing. Because this is a settlement of a class action lawsuit, Court oversight and approval is required. On April 23, 2024, the Court issued an Order of Preliminary Approval of the proposed settlement. A hearing on final approval of the proposed settlement is set for September 5, 2024. If the Court issues a Final Approval Judgment and Order after the final approval hearing, the case will be settled and terminated as to Perrigo, its co-defendant, and other individuals who previously had been named as defendants. We recorded an additional loss provision of $34 million during the quarter as a result of the pending settlement. The expense is presented within Other operating expense (income), net on the Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations for the three months ended March 30, 2024.

In addition to the class action, the following opt-out cases have been filed against us, and in some cases, Mr. Papa and Ms. Brown. We intend to defend these lawsuits vigorously. These cases in the New Jersey federal court currently are stayed pending further developments in the Roofers' case (discussed above). We anticipate that one or more of the opt-out plaintiffs will take a position that the settlement of the Roofer’s case does not have any direct effect on the opt out cases discussed below. The following lawsuits contain factual allegations and claims that are similar to some or all of the factual allegations and claims in the class actions, but involve different evidence, expert witnesses, and theories of liability:


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. This is the only opt out case that has not been stayed during the summary judgment proceedings in the New Jersey federal court. The fact discovery phase in this case ended in March 2024 and expert discovery 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's current scheduling order provides for the end of expert discovery in August 2024, and a post-discovery court conference in September 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

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 Baton 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 parties submitted settlement papers to the Court on November 17, 2023. The Court set a deadline of early January 2024 for objections to the proposed class settlement, and a hearing on the motion to certify the settlement is scheduled for May 15, 2024.

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 March 30, 2024, the Company has been named in approximately 110 individual lawsuits seeking compensatory and punitive damages. The Company has several defenses and intends to aggressively defend these lawsuits. Trials for these lawsuits are currently scheduled throughout 2024 and 2025.

In February 2020, the resulting actions involving Zantac® and other ranitidine products were transferred for coordinated pretrial proceedings to a Multi-District Litigation ("MDL") (In re Zantac®/Ranitidine Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 2924) in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. The Company successfully moved to dismiss the first set of Master Complaints in the MDL, which the Court granted without prejudice.

After the filing of Amended Complaints, on June 30, 2021, the Court then dismissed all claims against the retail and distributor defendants with prejudice and 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 the 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.

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. 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, most recently in Illinois where the Circuit Court granted in full the Company's motions to dismiss based on federal preemption, 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.

In October 2022, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation 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 acetaminophen 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. As of March 30, 2024, the Company has not been named as a defendant in any Complaints filed in the MDL. Certain of the Company’s customers have made requests regarding indemnity from the Company for a portion of their defense costs and potential liability. On December 18, 2023, the Court granted in full defendants' motions to exclude testimony of Plaintiffs' general causation expert witnesses, finding Plaintiffs presented no credible evidence of scientific causation between prenatal ingestion of acetaminophen and ASD or ADHD in children. Final judgment has been entered as to the majority of pending cases with an appeal to proceed in the Second Circuit. A small minority of cases have been exempted from the Court’s dismissal, and will be evaluated through a similar process as the larger majority later this year to determine if they can withstand scientific causation through a new expert. Currently, it is not possible to assess reliably the outcome of these cases or any potential future financial impact on the Company.

In September 2023, the FDA’s Advisory Committee on Nonprescription Drugs issued an advisory opinion calling into question the efficacy of orally administered phenylephrine (PE) containing products as a nasal decongestant. While the FDA itself has thus far taken no action in response to the Advisory Committee opinion, several putative class action lawsuits have been filed asserting various economic injury claims to consumers. On December 6, 2023, a number of the pending PE actions filed in various federal courts were consolidated into a multi-district litigation ("MDL") (In re: Oral Phenylephrine Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation, MDL No. 3089), pending before the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York. A smaller group of putative class-action lawsuits alleging various PE products also were mislabeled as "Maximum Strength" were initially excluded from the consolidation, but have recently been joined to the MDL. Several individual arbitrations have also been threatened or filed with the American Arbitration Association with similar efficacy allegations.

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 March 30, 2024, the loss accrual for litigation contingencies reflected on the balance sheet in Other accrued liabilities was $100.9 million. The Company also recorded an insurance recovery receivable reflected on the balance sheet in Prepaid expenses and other current assets of $25.5 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 (the "2015 Policy" and December 2016 (the "2016 Policy"), 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 (the "2014 Policy") is currently providing coverage for those matters. However, if the insurers were 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 aspects of 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 defense and counterclaim included its position that the 2015 Policy and 2016 Policy also provide coverage for the underlying securities litigation matters and sought a ruling to that effect. The discovery stage of the case occurred in 2022, and a bench trial was held in mid-November 2023. In January 2024, the Court issued an opinion rejecting the insurers' position that Perrigo's insurance coverage is limited to the 2014 Policy. The Court held an additional hearing in April 2024 to hear the parties' submissions concerning under which of the 2014, 2015, and 2016 Policies Perrigo is entitled to coverage. Insurers now claim the cover is limited to the 2015 Policy year. The insurers have 28 days after the order is finalized to seek an appeal of the Court's January 2024 decision.