COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

12 Months Ended

Dec. 31, 2021

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]


COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

Refer to Note 2 for information regarding our unfunded contingent payments associated with collaborative and other arrangements.

Indemnifications

During the normal course of business, we make indemnities, commitments and guarantees pursuant to which we may be required to make payments related to specific transactions. Indemnifications include: (i) intellectual property indemnities to customers in connection with the use, sales or license of products and services; (ii) indemnities to customers in connection with losses incurred while performing services on their premises; (iii) indemnities to vendors and service providers pertaining to claims based on negligence or willful misconduct; (iv) indemnities involving the representations and warranties in certain contracts; and (v) contractual indemnities for our directors and certain of our executive officers for services provided to or at the request of us. In addition, under our Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation, and consistent with Delaware General Corporation Law, we have agreed

to indemnify our directors and officers for certain losses and expenses upon the occurrence of certain prescribed events. The majority of these indemnities, commitments and guarantees do not provide for any limitation on the maximum potential for future payments that we could be obligated to make. To help address some of these risks, we maintain various insurance coverages. Based on historical experience and evaluation of the agreements, we do not believe that any payments related to our indemnities will have a material impact on our financial condition or results of operations.

Legal Contingencies

We are involved in product liability, patent, commercial, and other legal matters that arise in the normal course of our business. We record a liability when a loss is considered probable and the amount can be reasonably estimated. If the reasonable estimate of a probable loss is a range, and no amount within the range is a better estimate, the minimum amount in the range is accrued. If a loss is not probable or a probable loss cannot be reasonably estimated, no liability is recorded. As of December 31, 2021 and 2020, our total recorded reserves with respect to legal and environmental matters were $72 million and $40 million, respectively.

We have established reserves for certain of the matters discussed below. We are not able to estimate the amount or range of any loss for certain contingencies for which there is no reserve or additional loss for matters already reserved. While our liability in connection with these claims cannot be estimated and the resolution thereof in any reporting period could have a significant impact on our results of operations and cash flows for that period, the outcome of these legal proceedings is not expected to have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial position. While we believe that we have valid defenses in the matters set forth below, litigation is inherently uncertain, excessive verdicts do occur, and we may incur material judgments or enter into material settlements of claims.

In addition to the matters described below, we remain subject to the risk of future administrative and legal actions. With respect to governmental and regulatory matters, these actions may lead to product recalls, injunctions, and other restrictions on our operations and monetary sanctions, including significant civil or criminal penalties, all of which could materially affect future results of operations. With respect to intellectual property, we may be exposed to significant litigation concerning the scope of our and others’ rights. Such litigation could result in a loss of patent protection or the ability to market products, which could lead to a significant loss of sales, or otherwise materially affect future results of operations.

Environmental

We are involved as a potentially responsible party (PRP) for environmental clean-up costs at six Superfund sites. Under the U.S. Superfund statute and many state laws, generators of hazardous waste sent to a disposal or recycling site are liable for site cleanup if contaminants from that property later leak into the environment. The laws generally provide that a PRP may be held jointly and severally liable for the costs of investigating and remediating the site. Separate from the Superfund cases noted above, we are involved in ongoing environmental remediations associated with historic operations at certain of our facilities. As of December 31, 2021 and 2020, our environmental reserves, which are measured on an undiscounted basis, were $18 million and $20 million, respectively. After considering these reserves, the outcome of these matters is not expected to have a material adverse effect on our financial position or results of operations.

General litigation

In November 2016, a putative antitrust class action complaint seeking monetary and injunctive relief was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The complaint alleges a conspiracy among manufacturers of IV solutions to restrict output and affect pricing in connection with a shortage of such solutions. Similar parallel actions subsequently were filed. In January 2017, a single consolidated complaint covering these matters was filed in the Northern District of Illinois. We filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint in February 2017. The court granted our motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint without prejudice in July 2018. The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, which we moved to dismiss on November 9, 2018. The court granted our motion to dismiss the amended complaint with prejudice on April 3, 2020. The plaintiffs did not file an appeal.

In April 2017, we became aware of a criminal investigation by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), Antitrust Division and a federal grand jury in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. We and an employee received subpoenas seeking production of documents and testimony regarding the manufacturing, selling, pricing and shortages of IV solutions and containers (including saline solutions and certain other injectable

medicines sold by us) and communications with competitors regarding the same. On November 30, 2018, the DOJ notified us that it had closed the investigation. The New York Attorney General has also requested that we provide information regarding business practices in the IV saline industry. We cooperated with that request and have been advised that the matter has now been closed.

In August 2019, we were named in an amended complaint filed by Fayette County, Georgia in the MDL In re: National Prescription Opiate Litigation pending in the U.S. District Court, Northern District of Ohio. The complaint alleges that multiple manufacturers and distributors of opiate products improperly marketed and diverted these products, which caused harm to Fayette County. The complaint is limited in its allegations as to Baxter and does not distinguish between injectable opiate products and orally administered opiates. We manufactured generic injectable opiate products in our facility in Cherry Hill, NJ, which we divested in 2011.

In November 2019, we and certain of our officers were named in a class action complaint captioned Ethan E. Silverman et al. v. Baxter International Inc. et al. that was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The plaintiff, who allegedly purchased shares of our common stock during the specified class period, filed this putative class action on behalf of himself and shareholders who acquired Baxter common stock between February 21, 2019 and October 23, 2019. The plaintiff alleges that we and certain officers violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by making allegedly false and misleading statements and failing to disclose material facts relating to certain intra-company transactions undertaken for the purpose of generating foreign exchange gains or avoiding foreign exchange losses, as well as our internal controls over financial reporting. On January 29, 2020, the Court appointed Varma Mutual Pension Insurance Company and Louisiana Municipal Police Employees Retirement System as lead plaintiffs in the case. Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on June 25, 2020 containing substantially the same allegations. On August 24, 2020, we filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. On January 12, 2021, the Court granted our motion to dismiss the amended complaint but gave plaintiffs an opportunity to file a further-amended complaint. The parties reached an agreement to settle the case for $16 million, subject to the completion of confirmatory discovery and final approval by the Court. The Court granted final approval of the settlement on August 11, 2021 and the settlement became effective on September 13, 2021.

In addition, we have received a stockholder request for inspection of our books and records in connection with the announcement made in our Form 8-K on October 24, 2019 that we had commenced an internal investigation into certain intra-company transactions that impacted our previously reported non-operating foreign exchange gains and losses. As initially disclosed on October 24, 2019, we also voluntarily advised the staff of the SEC of our internal investigation and we have been cooperating with the staff of the SEC. On February 18, 2022, we reached a settlement with the SEC, which resolved the SEC’s investigation into related matters. Without admitting or denying the findings in the administrative order issued by the SEC, we agreed to pay a civil penalty of $18 million and to cease and desist from violations of specified provisions of the federal securities laws and related rules. In the order, the SEC acknowledged the Company’s cooperation. We are fully accrued for the civil penalty as of December 31, 2021 and we expect to pay the penalty in the first quarter of 2022.

In March 2020, two lawsuits were filed against us in the Northern District of Illinois by plaintiffs alleging injuries as a result of exposure to ethylene oxide used in our manufacturing facility in Mountain Home, Arkansas to sterilize certain of our products. The plaintiffs sought damages, including compensatory and punitive damages in an unspecified amount, and unspecified injunctive and declaratory relief. The parties reached agreement to settle these lawsuits in the third quarter of 2021 for amounts that are not material to our financial results, which were paid in the fourth quarter of 2021. The settlement of these claims does not preclude potential future lawsuits.

In July 2021, Hill-Rom, Inc. received a subpoena (from the United States Office of Inspector General for the Department of Health and Human Services (the DHHS) requesting documents and information related to compliance with the False Claims Act and the Anti-Kickback Statute. Hillrom has been working with the DHHS and the DOJ to provide information responsive to the subpoena. Hillrom also voluntarily began a related internal review and Hillrom and now Baxter have been cooperating fully with the DHHS and the DOJ with respect to these matters.

The DHHS often issues this type of subpoena when investigating alleged violations of the False Claims Act.

On December 28, 2021, Linet Americas, Inc. (Linet) filed a complaint against Hill-Rom Holdings, Inc., Hill-Rom Company, Inc., and Hill-Rom Services, Inc. in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, captioned Linet Americas, Inc. v. Hill-Rom Holdings, Inc.; Hill-Rom Company, Inc.; Hill-Rom Services, Inc. Linet alleges that Hillrom violated Sections 1, 2 and 3 of The Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890 and the Illinois Antitrust Act by allegedly engaging in anti-competitive conduct in alleged markets for standard, ICU and birthing beds. Hillrom filed an answer to the complaint on January 28, 2022.

Other

As previously disclosed, in 2008 we recalled our heparin sodium injection products in the United States. Following the recall, more than 1,000 lawsuits alleging that plaintiffs suffered various reactions to a heparin contaminant, in some cases resulting in fatalities, were filed. In January 2019, the last of these cases was settled. In 2019, following the resolution of an insurance dispute, we received cash proceeds of $39 million for our allocation of the insurance proceeds under a settlement and cost-sharing agreement related to the defense of the heparin product liability cases. We recognized a $37 million gain in connection with the resolution of the dispute with the insurer that is classified within other operating income, net on the consolidated statement of income for the year ended December 31, 2019.

In September 2017, Hurricane Maria caused damage to certain of our assets in Puerto Rico and disrupted operations. In 2019, we recognized $100 million of insurance recoveries related to the losses from the hurricane, which are classified within other operating income, net on the consolidated statement of income.