16.

Litigation

On October 10, 2013 and October 17, 2013, purported shareholder class actions, styled Jimmy Wang v. ARIAD Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., and James L. Burch v. ARIAD Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., respectively, were filed in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, naming the Company and certain of its officers as defendants. The lawsuits allege that the Company made material misrepresentations and/or omissions of material fact regarding clinical and safety data for Iclusig in its public disclosures during the period from December 12, 2011 through October 8, 2013, in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The plaintiffs in each suit seek unspecified monetary damages on behalf of the putative class and an award of costs and expenses, including attorney’s fees. On November 6, 2013, a purported derivative lawsuit, styled Yu Liang v. ARIAD Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts on behalf of the Company naming its directors and certain of its officers as defendants. The lawsuit alleges that the Company’s directors and certain of its officers breached their fiduciary duties related to the clinical development and commercialization of Iclusig and by making misrepresentations regarding the safety and commercial marketability of Iclusig. The lawsuit also asserts claims for unjust enrichment and corporate waste, and for misappropriation of information and insider trading by the officers named as defendants. The plaintiff seeks unspecified monetary damages, changes in the Company’s corporate governance policies and internal procedures, restitution and disgorgement from the individually named defendants, and an award of costs and expenses, including attorney’s fees.

Additional complaints may be filed against the Company and its directors and officers related to its disclosures and announcements concerning the safety, marketing and commercial distribution and further clinical development of Iclusig in the United States.

The Company believes that these actions are without merit. At this time, no assessment can be made as to the likely outcome of these lawsuits or whether the outcome will be material to the Company.