XML 43 R28.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.24.0.1

LEGAL PROCEEDINGS | 12 Months Ended
--- | ---
Dec. 31, 2023
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] |
LEGAL PROCEEDINGS | LEGAL PROCEEDINGS From time to time, the Company becomes involved in various legal and administrative proceedings, which include product liability, intellectual property, commercial, tax, antitrust, governmental and regulatory investigations, related private litigation and ordinary course employment-related issues. From time to time, the Company also initiates actions or files counterclaims. The Company could be subject to counterclaims or other suits in response to actions it may initiate. The Company believes that the prosecution of these actions and counterclaims is important to preserve and protect the Company, its reputation and its assets. Certain of these proceedings and actions are described below. On a quarterly basis, the Company evaluates developments in legal proceedings, potential settlements and other matters that could increase or decrease the amount of the liability accrued. As of December 31, 2023, the Company’s Consolidated Balance Sheets includes accrued current loss contingencies of $344 million related to matters which are both probable and reasonably estimable. For all other matters, unless otherwise indicated, the Company cannot reasonably predict the outcome of these legal proceedings, nor can it estimate the amount of loss, or range of loss, if any, that may result from these proceedings. An adverse outcome in certain of these proceedings could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business, financial condition and results of operations, and could cause the market value of its common shares and/or debt securities to decline. Governmental and Regulatory Inquiries Investigation by the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of Iowa – re OrthoDerm The Company received a Civil Investigative Demand in May 2021 from the Civil Division of the United States Department of Justice and the United States Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of Iowa, requesting documents and other information concerning the sales and marketing of Bryhali®, Duobrii®, Jublia® and Siliq®. The Company is cooperating with this investigation. The Company cannot predict the outcome or the duration of this investigation or any other legal proceedings or any enforcement actions or other remedies that may be imposed on the Company arising out of this investigation. Securities Class Actions and Related Matters U.S. Securities Litigation - Opt-Out Litigation On December 16, 2019, the Company announced that it had agreed to settle, subject to final court approval, the consolidated securities class action filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey (In re Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 15-cv-07658) (the “Securities Class Action Settlement”). As part of the settlement, the Company and the other settling defendants admitted no liability as to the claims against them and denied all allegations of wrongdoing. On January 31, 2021, the District Court issued an order granting final approval of this settlement. After various appeals, and with passage of time, this settlement has become final pursuant to the stipulation of settlement. The matter is now concluded with respect to the Company and all claims have been resolved and discharged as to the Company and its current/former officers and directors. In addition to the consolidated putative class action, thirty-seven groups of individual investors in the Company’s stock and debt securities have chosen to opt out of the consolidated putative class action and filed securities actions in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey against the Company and certain current or former officers and directors. These actions are captioned: T. Rowe Price Growth Stock Fund, Inc. v. Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. (Case No. 16-cv-5034) (“T. Rowe.”); Equity Trustees Limited as Responsible Entity for T. Rowe Price Global Equity Fund v. Valeant Pharmaceuticals International Inc. (Case No. 16-cv-6127) (“Equity Trustees”); Principal Funds, Inc. v. Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. (Case No. 16-cv-6128) (“Principal Funds”); BloombergSen Partners Fund LP v. Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. (Case No. 16-cv-7212) (“Bloombergsen”); Discovery Global Citizens Master Fund, Ltd. v. Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. (Case No. 16-cv-7321); MSD Torchlight Partners, L.P. v. Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. (Case No. 16-cv-7324); BlueMountain Foinaven Master Fund, L.P. v. Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. (Case No. 16-cv-7328) (“BlueMountain”); Incline Global Master LP v. Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. (Case No. 16-cv-7494); VALIC Company I v. Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. (Case No. 16-cv-7496); Janus Aspen Series v. Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. (Case No. 16-cv-7497) (“Janus Aspen”); Okumus Opportunistic Value Fund, LTD v. Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. (Case No. 17-cv-6513); Lord Abbett Investment Trust- Lord Abbett Short Duration Income Fund, v. Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. (Case No. 17-cv-6365) (“Lord Abbett”); Pentwater Equity Opportunities Master Fund LTD v. Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc., et al. (Case No. 17-cv-7552) (“Pentwater”); Public Employees’ Retirement System of Mississippi v. Valeant Pharmaceuticals International Inc. (Case No. 17-cv-7625) (“Mississippi”); The Boeing Company Employee Retirement Plans Master Trust v. Valeant Pharmaceuticals International Inc., et al., (Case No. 17-cv-7636); State Board of Administration of Florida v. Valeant Pharmaceuticals International Inc. (Case No. 17-cv-12808); The Regents of the University of California v. Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. (Case No. 17-cv-13488) (“UC Regents”); GMO Trust v. Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. (Case No. 18-cv-0089); Första AP Fonden v. Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. (Case No. 17-cv-12088); New York City Employees’ Retirement System v. Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. (Case No. 18-cv-0032) (“NYCERS”); Hound Partners Offshore Fund, LP v. Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. (Case No. 18-cv-08705) (“Hound Partners”); Blackrock Global Allocation Fund, Inc. v. Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. (Case No. 18-cv-0343); Colonial First State Investments Limited As Responsible Entity for Commonwealth Global Shares Fund 1 v. Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. (Case No. 18-cv-0383); Bharat Ahuja v. Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. (Case No. 18-cv-0846); Brahman Capital Corp. v. Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc (Case No. 18-cv-0893); The Prudential Insurance Company of America v. Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. (Case No. 18-cv-01223); Senzar Healthcare Master Fund LP v. Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. (Case No. 18-cv-02286) (“Senzar”); 2012 Dynasty UC LLC v. Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. (Case No. 18-cv-08595); Catalyst Dynamic Alpha Fund v. Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. (Case No. 18-cv-12673) (“Catalyst”); Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Co., v. Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. (Case No. 18-cv-15286); Bahaa Aly, et al. v. Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc., (Case No. 18-cv-17393) (“Aly”); Office of the Treasurer as Trustee for the Connecticut Retirement Plans and Trust Funds v. Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. (Case No. 19-cv-18473) (“Connecticut”); Delaware Public Employees’ Retirement System v. Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. (Case No. 19-cv-18475) (“Delaware”); Maverick Neutral Levered Fund v. Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. (Case No. 20-cv-02190); Templeton v. Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. (Case No. 20-cv-05478); USAA Mutual Funds Trust, et al. v. Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc., et al., (Case No. 20-cv-07462); and GIC Private Ltd. v. Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc., (Case No. 20-cv-07460). Sixteen of the thirty-seven opt-out actions have been dismissed; and the total number of remaining opt-out actions pending in the District of New Jersey is twenty-one actions. These individual shareholder actions assert claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”). Certain of these individual actions assert additional claims, including claims under Section 18 of the Exchange Act, Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act, common law fraud, negligent misrepresentation and claims under the New Jersey Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. These claims are based on alleged purchases of Company stock, options, and/or debt at various times between January 3, 2013 and August 10, 2016. The allegations in the complaints are similar to those made by plaintiffs in the putative class action. Motions to dismiss were filed in many of these individual actions and the Court has dismissed state law claims including New Jersey Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, common law fraud and negligent misrepresentation claims in certain cases. On January 7, 2019, the Court entered a stipulation of voluntary dismissal in the Senzar opt-out action, closing the case. On September 10, 2019, the Court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss all claims in the Aly opt-out action. On October 9, 2019, the Aly Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. On June 16, 2021, the Court of Appeals granted plaintiffs’ appeal in the Aly action. This action has been remanded to the District Court. On June 19, 2020, the Court entered stipulations of voluntary dismissal in the Catalyst, Mississippi, Connecticut and Delaware actions. On July 13, 2020, the Court entered a stipulation of voluntary dismissal in the NYCERS action. On December 30, 2020, the Court entered a stipulation of voluntary dismissal in the BlueMountain action. On February 18, 2021, and March 10, 2021, the Court entered stipulations of voluntary dismissal in the T. Rowe, BloombergSen, Principal Funds, Pentwater, Lord Abbett, Equity Trustees and UC Regents actions. On April 30, 2021, the Court entered a stipulation of voluntary dismissal in the Florida SBA action. On July 20, 2021, the Court entered a stipulation of voluntary dismissal in the Janus action. Discovery in the opt-out actions has concluded. Motions for summary judgment were filed on August 1, 2022. On May 22, 2023, the Special Master overseeing the opt-out litigation issued reports and recommendations on all pending summary judgment motions. The Special Master recommended denying Plaintiffs’ motions in their entirety, denying all motions filed by the Company and granting in part certain other defendants’ motions for summary judgment on subparts of their defenses. On June 26, 2023, the Parties filed motions to adopt and objections to the Special Master’s May 22, 2023 reports and recommendations. On January 2, 2024, the District Court issued decisions affirming in part and overruling in part the Special Master’s recommendations and granting partial summary judgment in favor of defendants on additional subparts of their defenses. On January 16, 2024, Plaintiffs filed a motion requesting that the Court reconsider a portion of its January 2, 2024 decisions. No defendants have been fully dismissed from the opt-out actions as a result of the District Court’s decisions. Trial dates have not been set in any of the opt-out actions. The Company disputes the claims against it in the remaining individual opt-out complaints and intends to defend itself vigorously. U.S. Securities Litigation – Kelk Complaint On July 26, 2023, a purported class action complaint captioned Kelk v. Bausch Health Companies Inc., et al. (No. 23-cv-03996), was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey against the Company and certain of its current or former officers. The action alleges claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. Plaintiffs allege that defendants made various misrepresentations and omissions regarding the Company’s proposed spin-off of Bausch + Lomb, and allege that those purported misrepresentations and omissions concealed that the spin-off was executed as part of a strategy to subvert the pending opt-out lawsuits and leave plaintiffs in those actions without viable means to a potential recovery. An amended complaint was filed on January 19, 2024. The amended complaint also alleges that defendants made various misrepresentations and omissions regarding the strength of the Company’s patents protecting its product, Xifaxan®, from generic competitors. Pursuant to the operative scheduling order, defendants will move to dismiss the amended complaint by March 20, 2024. The Company disputes the claims against it and intends to defend itself vigorously. Derivative Lawsuit – Powers Complaint On October 2, 2023, a derivative lawsuit captioned Powers v. Papa, et al. (Index No. 159699/2023) was filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York by an alleged stockholder of the Company. The action purports to assert derivative claims on behalf of the Company against the Company’s Board of Directors and certain of its current or former officers and directors. The action asserts claims for, inter alia, breach of fiduciary duty and waste of corporate assets and alleges that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties of loyalty and good faith by causing the Company to issue false and/or misleading statements regarding the Company’s proposed spin-off of Bausch + Lomb. On January 23, 2024, the Court entered a stipulation and order staying this action until the resolution of the forthcoming motion to dismiss in the Kelk action referenced above. Canadian Securities Litigation In 2015, six putative class actions were filed and served against the Company and certain current or former officers and directors in Canada in the provinces of British Columbia, Ontario and Quebec. These actions are captioned: (a) Alladina v. Valeant, et al. (Case No. S-1594B6) (Supreme Court of British Columbia) (filed November 17, 2015); (b) Kowalyshyn v. Valeant, et al. (CV-15-540593-00CP) (Ontario Superior Court) (filed November 16, 2015); (c) Kowalyshyn et al. v. Valeant, et al. (CV-15-541082-00CP) (Ontario Superior Court) (filed November 23, 2015); (d) O’Brien v. Valeant et al. (CV-15-543678-00CP) (Ontario Superior Court) (filed December 30, 2015); (e) Catucci v. Valeant, et al. (Court File No. 540-17-011743159, then Court File No. 500-06-000783-163) (Quebec Superior Court) (filed October 26, 2015) and (f) Rousseau-Godbout v. Valeant, et al. (Court File No. 500-06-000770-152) (Quebec Superior Court) (filed October 27, 2015). The Company is also aware of two additional putative class actions that were filed with the applicable court but which have not been served on the Company and the factual allegations made in these actions are substantially similar to those outlined herein. These actions are captioned: (i) Okeley v. Valeant, et al. (Case No. S-159991) (Supreme Court of British Columbia) (filed December 2, 2015) and (ii) Sukenaga v Valeant et al. (CV-15-540567-00CP) (Ontario Superior Court) (filed November 16, 2015). The actions generally allege violations of Canadian provincial securities legislation on behalf of putative classes of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired securities of the Company for periods commencing as early as January 1, 2013 and ending as late as November 16, 2015. The alleged violations relate to the same matters described in the U.S. Securities Litigation description above. Each of these putative class actions, other than the Catucci action in the Quebec Superior Court, was discontinued. In the Catucci action, on August 29, 2017, the judge granted the plaintiffs leave to proceed with their claims under the Quebec Securities Act and authorized the class proceeding. On October 26, 2017, the plaintiffs issued their Judicial Application Originating Class Proceedings. After a hearing on November 11, 2019, the court approved a settlement in the Catucci action between the class members and the Company’s auditors and the action was dismissed as against the Company’s auditors. On August 4, 2020, the Company entered into a settlement agreement with the plaintiffs in Catucci, on behalf of the class, pursuant to which it agreed to resolve the Catucci action for the amount of CAD 94,000,000 plus payment of an additional amount to cover notice and settlement administration costs and disbursements. As part of the settlement, the Company and the other defendants admitted no liability as to the claims against it and deny all allegations of wrongdoing. Court approval of the settlement was granted after a hearing on November 16, 2020. The Catucci action has now been dismissed against the Company, its current and former directors and officers, its underwriters and its insurers. In addition to the class proceedings described above, on April 12, 2018, the Company was served with an application for leave filed in the Quebec Superior Court of Justice to pursue an action under the Quebec Securities Act against the Company and certain current or former officers and directors. This proceeding is captioned BlackRock Asset Management Canada Limited et al. v. Valeant, et al. (Court File No. 500-11-054155-185). The allegations in the proceeding are similar to those made by plaintiffs in the Catucci class action. On June 18, 2018, the same BlackRock entities filed an originating application (Court File No. 500-17-103749-183) against the same defendants asserting claims under the Quebec Civil Code in respect of the same alleged misrepresentations. The Company is aware that certain other members of the Catucci class exercised their opt-out rights prior to the June 19, 2018 deadline. On February 15, 2019, one of the entities which exercised its opt-out rights, the California State Teachers’ Retirement System (“CalSTRS”), served the Company with an application in the Quebec Superior Court of Justice for leave to pursue an action under the Quebec Securities Act against the Company, certain current or former officers and directors of the Company and its auditor. That proceeding is captioned California State Teachers’ Retirement System v. Bausch Health Companies Inc. et al. (Court File No. 500-11-055722-181). The allegations in the proceeding are similar to those made by the plaintiffs in the Catucci class action and in the BlackRock opt-out proceedings. On that same date, CalSTRS also served the Company with proceedings (Court File No. 500-17-106044-186) against the same defendants asserting claims under the Quebec Civil Code in respect of the same alleged misrepresentations. On February 3, 2020, the Quebec Superior Court granted the applications of CalSTRS and BlackRock for leave to pursue their respective actions asserting claims under the Quebec Securities Act. On June 16, 2020, the Quebec Court of Appeal granted the defendants leave to appeal that decision. The appeal was heard on September 29, 2021 and, by judgment dated October 29, 2021, the appeals were dismissed. On October 8 and 9, 2020, respectively, CalSTRS amended its proceedings to, among other things, include a new alleged misrepresentation concerning the accounting treatment of “price appreciation credits” in respect of Glumetza® during the period covered by the claims. A hearing was held on February 17, 2021 with respect to whether CalSTRS would be permitted to file the proposed amended proceedings. On June 9, 2021, the Quebec Superior Court granted the Company’s application to strike the new allegations from its Quebec Securities Act claim, but permitted the amendments to its claim under the Quebec Civil Code. On December 8, 2021, CalSTRS delivered its amended pleadings. On March 17, 2021, four additional opt-outs from the Catucci class issued a Statement of Claim in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice. That proceeding is captioned The Bank of Korea et al. v. Valeant Pharmaceuticals International Inc. et al. (Court File No. 21-006589666-0000). In addition, these plaintiffs also served and filed a motion for leave to pursue claims under the Ontario Securities Act. The allegations in this proceeding are similar to those made by the plaintiffs in the Catucci class action and the plaintiffs in the opt-out actions described above. The Company believes that it has viable defenses in each of these actions. In each case, the Company intends to defend itself vigorously. Other Securities and RICO Related Matters Insurance Coverage Lawsuit On December 7, 2017, the Company filed a lawsuit against its insurance companies that issued insurance policies covering claims made against the Company, its subsidiaries, and its directors and officers during two distinct policy periods, (i) 2013-14 and (ii) 2015-16. The lawsuit was brought in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey (Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc., et al. v. AIG Insurance Company of Canada, et al.; Case No. 3:18-CV-00493). In the lawsuit, the Company seeks coverage for: (i) the costs of defending and resolving claims brought by former shareholders and debtholders of Allergan, Inc. in In re Allergan, Inc. Proxy Violation Securities Litigation and Timber Hill LLC, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Pershing Square Capital Management, L.P., et al. (the “Allergan Securities Litigation”) (under the 2013-2014 coverage period) and (ii) costs incurred and to be incurred in connection with, inter alia, In re Valeant Pharmaceutical International, Inc. Securities Litigation, the Securities Class Action Settlement, the U.S. Securities Litigation – Opt-Out Litigation, and the Canadian Securities Litigation described in this section (collectively, “the Securities Matters”) (under the 2015-2016 coverage period). On July 20, 2021, the Company entered into settlement agreements with the insurers in the 2015-2016 coverage period in which the Company agreed to resolve its claims for insurance coverage in connection with the Securities Matters, and with two insurers in the 2013-2014 coverage period to resolve its claims against those two insurers for insurance coverage in connection with the Allergan Securities Litigation. As of June 30, 2023, the Company has entered into settlement agreements with the remaining insurers in the 2013-2014 coverage period in which the Company agreed to resolve its remaining claims for insurance coverage in connection with the Allergan Securities Litigation. As a result of all of the settlement agreements entered into with the insurers through June 30, 2023, the Company has received an aggregate sum of $313 million for its claims in the 2013-2014 and 2015-2016 coverage periods. This matter has now concluded. Hound Partners Lawsuit In October 2018, Hound Partners Offshore Fund, LP, Hound Partners Long Master, LP and Hound Partners Concentrated Master, LP, filed a lawsuit against the Company in the Superior Court of New Jersey Law Division/Mercer County that asserts claims for common law fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and violations of the New Jersey Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. The Company disputes the claims and intends to vigorously defend this matter. Antitrust Glumetza Antitrust Litigation Between August 2019 and July 2020, eight (8) putative antitrust class actions and four (4) non-class complaints naming the Company, Salix Pharmaceuticals, Ltd., Salix Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Santarus, Inc. (for purposes of this subsection, collectively, the “Company”), among other defendants, were filed or transferred to the Northern District of California. Three (3) of the class actions were filed by plaintiffs seeking to represent a class of direct purchasers. The purported classes of direct purchasers filed a consolidated first amended complaint and a motion for class certification in April 2020. The court certified a direct purchaser class in August 2020. The putative class action complaints filed by end payer purchasers have all been voluntarily dismissed. Three (3) of the non-class complaints were filed by direct purchasers. The fourth non-class complaint, asserting claims based on both direct and indirect purchases, was filed by an insurer plaintiff in July 2020 and subsequently amended in September 2020. In December 2020, the court denied the Company’s motion to dismiss as to the insurer plaintiff’s direct claims but dismissed the insurer plaintiff’s indirect claims. On February 2, 2021, the insurer plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend its complaint was denied. These actions were consolidated and coordinated in In re Glumetza Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 3:19-cv-05822-WHA (the “In re Glumetza Antitrust Litigation”). The lawsuits alleged that a 2012 settlement of a patent litigation regarding Glumetza® delayed generic entry in exchange for an agreement not to launch an authorized generic of Glumetza® or grant any other company a license to do so. The complaints alleged that the settlement agreement resulted in higher prices for Glumetza® and its generic equivalent both prior to and after generic entry. Both the class and non-class plaintiffs sought damages under federal antitrust laws for claims based on direct purchases. On February 8, 2021, the insurer plaintiff filed an action asserting its indirect (state law) claims in the Superior Court of Alameda County, California against the Company and others (the “State Court Action”) (discussed in further detail below, see Glumetza State-Law Insurer Litigations). On July 26, 2021, the Company reached an agreement in principle and, thereafter, on September 14, 2021, executed a final settlement agreement to resolve the class plaintiffs’ claims for $300 million, subject to court approval. On August 1, 2021, the Company also reached an agreement in principle to resolve the non-class direct purchaser plaintiffs’ claims, described above, for additional consideration. A final settlement agreement with the non-class direct purchaser plaintiffs was executed on August 6, 2021. As part of the settlements, the Company admitted no liability as to the claims against it and denied all allegations of wrongdoing. On September 20, 2021, the insurer plaintiff voluntarily dismissed its claims in the consolidated federal action. By stipulation, the insurer plaintiff has asserted its direct opt-out claims in the State Court Action, resulting in the consolidation of all of its opt-out claims in the State Court Action. On September 22, 2021, the court granted preliminary approval of the class settlement agreement and vacated the October 2021 trial date and all other pre-trial deadlines in the consolidated actions. On February 3, 2022, the court granted final approval of the class settlement and ordered dismissal of the class plaintiffs’ claims. The deadline to appeal the final approval of the class settlement has now passed, and the settlements have resolved and discharged all asserted class and direct purchaser non-class claims against the Company in the In re Glumetza Antitrust Litigation. Glumetza State-Law Insurer Litigations On February 8, 2021, the insurer plaintiff from the federal In re Glumetza Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 3:19-cv-05822- WHA (N.D. Cal.) (the “In re Glumetza Antitrust Litigation”) (discussed in further detail above), Humana Inc. (“Humana”), filed an action asserting its indirect (state law) claims in the Superior Court of Alameda County, California against the Company and others (the “State Court Action”). The State Court Action alleges that a 2012 settlement of a patent litigation regarding Glumetza® delayed generic entry in exchange for an agreement not to launch an authorized generic of Glumetza® or grant any other company a license to do so. The State Court Action alleges that the settlement agreement resulted in higher prices for Glumetza® and its generic equivalent both prior to and after generic entry. On September 20, 2021, the parties stipulated that Humana’s direct opt-out claims from In re Glumetza Antitrust Litigation, discussed above, were deemed asserted in the State Court Action. Defendants’ demurrer in the State Court Action was heard on September 22, 2021. On November 29, 2021, the court denied the motion in part and granted it in part as to certain state law claims, with leave to amend. Humana did not amend the complaint. Defendants’ answers were filed on February 3, 2022. On April 5, 2022, Health Care Service Corporation filed an action with similar substantive allegations and similar indirect (state law) claims in the Superior Court of Alameda County, California against the Company and others. Defendants’ answers were filed on June 17, 2022. On November 28, 2022, the Court consolidated this action with the State Court Action for trial and pretrial purposes (the “Consolidated State Case”). Trial is currently scheduled to start in December 2024 in the Consolidated State Case. The Company disputes the claims and intends to vigorously defend these matters. Generic Pricing Antitrust Litigation The Company’s subsidiaries, Oceanside Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (“Oceanside”), Bausch Health US, LLC (formerly Valeant Pharmaceuticals North America LLC) (“Bausch Health US”) and Bausch Health Americas, Inc. (formerly Valeant Pharmaceuticals International) (“Bausch Health Americas”) (for the purposes of this paragraph, collectively, the “Company”), are defendants in multidistrict antitrust litigation (“MDL”) entitled In re: Generic Pharmaceuticals Pricing Antitrust Litigation, pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (MDL 2724, 16- MD-2724). The lawsuits seek damages under federal and state antitrust laws, state consumer protection and unjust enrichment laws and allege that the Company’s subsidiaries entered into a conspiracy to fix, stabilize, and raise prices, rig bids and engage in market and customer allocation for generic pharmaceuticals. The lawsuits, which have been brought as putative class actions by direct purchasers, end payers, and indirect resellers, and as direct actions by direct purchasers, end payers, insurers, hospitals, pharmacies, States, and various Counties, Cities, and Towns, have been consolidated into the MDL. There are also additional, separate complaints which have been consolidated in the same MDL that do not name the Company or any of its subsidiaries as a defendant. On January 31, 2024, the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation entered a Remand Order remanding to the District of Connecticut, among other cases, State of Connecticut, et al. v. Sandoz, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 2:20-03539 (D. CT, C.A. No. 3:20-00802), in which the Company is a defendant. There are cases pending in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County against the Company and other defendants related to the multidistrict litigation, but no complaint has been filed in these cases. The cases have been placed in deferred status. The Company disputes the claims against it and continues to defend itself vigorously. Additionally, Bausch Health Companies Inc. and certain U.S. and Canadian subsidiaries (for the purposes of this paragraph, collectively the “Company”) have been named as defendants in a proposed class proceeding entitled Kathryn Eaton v. Teva Canada Limited, et al. in the Federal Court in Toronto, Ontario, Canada (Court File No. T-607-20). The plaintiff seeks to certify a proposed class action on behalf of persons in Canada who purchased generic drugs in the private sector, alleging that the Company and other defendants violated the Competition Act by conspiring to allocate the market, fix prices, and maintain the supply of generic drugs, and seeking damages under federal law. The proposed class action contains similar allegations to the In re: Generic Pharmaceuticals Pricing Antitrust Litigation pending in the United States Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The Company disputes the claims against it and intends to defend itself vigorously. These lawsuits cover products of both Bausch + Lomb and the Company’s businesses. It is anticipated that Bausch + Lomb and the Company will split the fees and expenses associated with defending these claims, as well as any potential damages or other liabilities awarded in or otherwise arising from these claims, in the manner set forth in the Master Separation Agreement between Bausch Health and Bausch + Lomb. Intellectual Property Patent Litigation/Paragraph IV Matters From time to time, the Company (and/or certain of its affiliates) is also party to certain intellectual property litigation proceedings in the United States and Canada, including as arising from claims filed against the Company or by the Company (or that the Company anticipates filing within the required time periods) related to certain products sold by or on behalf of the Company, which may be in connection with Notices of Paragraph IV Certification (in the United States) and Notices of Allegation (in Canada) received from third-party generic manufacturers, where such products include Xifaxan® 200 mg and 550 mg, Arazlo®, Duobrii®, Lotemax® SM, Lumify®, Trulance® and Vyzulta® in the United States. Xifaxan® Paragraph IV Proceedings On February 17, 2020, the Company and Alfasigma S.p.A. (“Alfasigma”) received a Notice of Paragraph IV Certification from Norwich Pharmaceuticals Inc. (“Norwich”), in which Norwich asserted that the U.S. patents listed in the FDA’s Orange Book for the Company’s Xifaxan® tablets, 550 mg, are either invalid, unenforceable and/or will not be infringed by the commercial manufacture, use or sale of Norwich’s generic rifaximin tablets, 550 mg, for which an ANDA has been filed by Norwich. The Company, through its subsidiaries Salix Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Bausch Health Ireland Limited, holds the New Drug Application for Xifaxan® and owns or exclusively licenses (from Alfasigma) these patents. On March 26, 2020, certain of the Company’s subsidiaries and Alfasigma filed suit against Norwich in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware (Case No. 20-cv-00430) pursuant to the Hatch-Waxman Act, alleging infringement by Norwich of one or more claims of the Xifaxan® Patents, thereby triggering a 30-month stay of the approval of Norwich’s ANDA for rifaximin tablets, 550 mg. Xifaxan® is protected by 28 patents covering the composition of matter and the use of Xifaxan® listed in the FDA’s Approved Drug Products with Therapeutic Equivalence Evaluations, or the Orange Book. Trial in this matter was held in March 2022. The court issued a final judgment on August 10, 2022, (the “Norwich Legal Decision”), finding that the U.S. Patents protecting the use of Xifaxan® (rifaximin) 550 mg tablets for the reduction in risk of hepatic encephalopathy (“HE”) recurrence valid and infringed and the U.S. Patents protecting the composition, and use of Xifaxan® for treating IBS-D invalid. The Norwich Legal Decision prevents FDA approval of Norwich’s 550 mg ANDA until October 2029. The Company appealed the Norwich Legal Decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on August 16, 2022. Following the Company’s appeal, Norwich claimed to have removed the HE indication from its existing ANDA and then filed a motion in the District Court requesting modification of the Norwich Legal Decision to permit the FDA to approve their ANDA before October 2029. The Company opposed the motion. On May 17, 2023, the District Court denied Norwich’s motion and confirmed that the FDA remained enjoined from granting final approval to Norwich’s ANDA until October 2029. Norwich filed its appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on May 19, 2023. The Company’s and Norwich’s appeals are now consolidated (the “Norwich Appeal”). The Norwich Appeal has been fully briefed and the Federal Circuit heard oral arguments on January 8, 2024. The Company awaits a decision from the Federal Circuit. In a letter to Norwich on June 2, 2023, the FDA granted tentative approval to Norwich’s ANDA, but confirmed that it is enjoined from granting final approval until October 2029. On June 5, 2023, Norwich brought a lawsuit against the FDA in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia (the “DC District Court”), alleging that the FDA acted improperly by only granting tentative approval to Norwich’s ANDA rather than final approval (the “Norwich DC Lawsuit”). In June 2023, the Company intervened in the Norwich DC Lawsuit. A hearing was held on October 6, 2023. On November 1, 2023, the DC District Court granted the Company’s and FDA’s motions for summary judgment, thereby ending the lawsuit. In December 2023, Norwich appealed the DC District Court’s November 1st decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. In December 2023, Norwich appealed the DC District Court’s November 1st decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (the “DC Circuit”). On February 2, 2024, the DC Circuit decided to hold the appeal in abeyance pending a decision from the Federal Circuit in the Norwich Appeal. In January 2023 and October 2023, the U.S. Patent Office issued U.S. Patent Nos. 11,564,912 (the “’912 Patent”) and 11,779,571 (the “’571 Patent”) directed to IBS-D, which were then listed in the FDA’s Orange Book for Xifaxan®. The Company received new Notices of Paragraph IV Certification from Norwich asserting that claims of the ‘912 and ‘571 Patents are invalid, unenforceable, and/or will not be infringed by the commercial manufacture, use, or sale of Norwich’s generic rifaximin tablets, 550 mg, under the existing Norwich ANDA. Any suit brought against the existing Norwich ANDA under the ‘912 or ‘571 Patent is not believed to result in a new 30-month stay of approval. The Company remains confident in the strength of the Xifaxan® patents and intends to vigorously defend its intellectual property. Duobrii® Paragraph IV Proceedings In June 2022, the Company received a Notice of Paragraph IV Certification from Taro Pharmaceuticals Inc. (“Taro”), in which Taro asserted that certain U.S. patents, each of which is listed in the FDA’s Orange Book for Duobrii® (halobetasol propionate and tazarotene) lotion, are either invalid, unenforceable and/or will not be infringed by the commercial manufacture, use, sale, offer for sale, or importation of Taro’s generic lotion, for which an ANDA has been filed by Taro. On July 21, 2022, the Company filed suit against Taro pursuant to the Hatch-Waxman Act, alleging infringement by Taro of one or more claims of the Duobrii® Patents and triggering a 30-month stay of the approval of the Taro ANDA. The Company remains confident in the strength of the Duobrii® patents and intends to vigorously defend its intellectual property. Trulance® Paragraph IV Proceedings In April 2021, the Company commenced litigation against MSN Laboratories Private Ltd. (“MSN”) and Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc., (“Mylan”) alleging patent infringement by MSN’s and Mylan’s filing of their ANDA for generic Trulance® (plecanatide) 3 mg tablets. This suit had been filed following receipt of a Notice of Paragraph IV Certification from each of MSN and Mylan, in which they had each asserted that the U.S. patents listed in the FDA’s Orange Book for the Company’s Trulance® tablets, 3 mg, were invalid, unenforceable and/or would not be infringed by the commercial manufacture, use or sale of their respective generic plecanatide tablets, 3 mg. The filing of these suits triggered a 30-month stay of the approval of the MSN and Mylan ANDAs for plecanatide tablets. In January 2023, the Company commenced litigation against Aurobindo Pharma Limited (“Auro”) alleging patent infringement by Auro’s filing of their ANDA for generic Trulance® (plecanatide) 3 mg tablets. This suit had been filed following receipt of a Notice of Paragraph IV Certification from Auro, in which it asserted that the U.S. patent listed in the FDA’s Orange Book for the Company’s Trulance® tablets, 3 mg, were invalid, unenforceable and/or would not be infringed by the commercial manufacture, use or sale of Auro’s generic plecanatide tablets, 3 mg. The filing of this suit triggered a 30-month stay of the approval of the Auro ANDA for plecanatide tablets. On October 30, 2023, the litigation with Auro was dismissed in accordance with a settlement between the Company and Auro. The Company remains confident in the strength of the Trulance® patents and intends to vigorously pursue this matter and defend its intellectual property. Xifaxan® Litigation with Curia IP Holdings, LLC Curia IP Holdings, LLC (“Curia”) filed a lawsuit against the Company on October 25, 2021, alleging that Xifaxan® 200 mg and 550 mg tablets infringe certain patents owned by Curia (U.S. Patent Nos. 9,186,355; 10,556,915; 10,745,415, and 10,961,257 (the “Curia Patents”)). Each of the Curia Patents was filed years after the Company’s launches of Xifaxan® 200 mg and 550 mg tablets. On August 17, 2022, the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey dismissed the complaint, without prejudice. Curia then filed an amended complaint on September 16, 2022, realleging infringement of its patents. On August 31, 2023, Curia filed a second lawsuit against the Company alleging that Xifaxan® 200 mg and 550 mg tablets infringe U.S. Patent No. 11,739,099 (the “’099 Patent”). The ‘099 Patent is related to the Curia Patents and was also filed years after the Company’s launches of Xifaxan 200 mg and 550 mg tablets. The first and second lawsuits filed by Curia are now consolidated (the “Curia Lawsuits”). On February 14, 2024, the court issued an order administratively terminating the case pending completion of mediation on or before April 14, 2024. The Company disputes Curia’s infringement claims against Xifaxan® 200 mg and 550 mg tablets and will continue to defend this matter. PreserVision® AREDS Patent Litigation PreserVision® AREDS and PreserVision® AREDS 2 are OTC eye vitamin formulas for those with moderate-to-advanced AMD. The PreserVision® U.S. formulation patent expired in March 2021, but a patent covering methods of using the formulation remains in force into 2026. Bausch & Lomb Incorporated (“B&L Inc.”) has filed patent infringement proceedings against 19 named defendants in 16 proceedings claiming infringement of these patents and, in certain circumstances, related unfair competition and false advertising causes of action. Thirteen of these proceedings were subsequently settled; two resulted in a default. As of the date of this filing, there is one ongoing action: Bausch & Lomb Inc. & PF Consumer Healthcare 1 LLC v. SBH Holdings LLC, C.A. No. 20-cv-01463-GBW-CJB (D. Del.). Bausch + Lomb remains confident in the strength of these patents and B&L Inc. will continue to vigorously pursue this matter and defend its intellectual property. Lumify® Paragraph IV Proceedings On August 16, 2021, B&L Inc. received a Notice of Paragraph IV Certification from Slayback Pharma LLC (“Slayback”), in which Slayback asserted that certain U.S. patents, each of which is listed in the FDA’s Orange Book for Lumify® (brimonidine tartrate solution) drops (the “Lumify Patents”), are either invalid, unenforceable and/or will not be infringed by the commercial manufacture, use or sale of Slayback’s generic drops, for which an ANDA has been filed by Slayback. B&L Inc., through its affiliate Bausch + Lomb Ireland Limited, exclusively licenses the Lumify Patents from Eye Therapies, LLC (“Eye Therapies”). On September 10, 2021, B&L Inc., Bausch + Lomb Ireland Limited and Eye Therapies filed suit against Slayback pursuant to the Hatch-Waxman Act, alleging infringement by Slayback of one or more claims of the Lumify Patents, thereby triggering a 30-month stay of the approval of the Slayback ANDA. Since then, U.S. Patent No. 9,259,425 has been dismissed from the case. On May 15, 2023, the United States Patent & Trademark Office’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board issued a Final Written Decision, finding all claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,293,742 unpatentable. This decision has been appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and the appeal is ongoing. Furthermore, two additional patents (US. Patent Nos. 11,596,600 and 11,833,245) have issued and been listed in the Orange Book as related to Lumify®. Lawsuits alleging infringement of these patents were filed against Slayback and its licensee, Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories S.A. and Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, Inc. (collectively, “DRL”). Subsequently, on December 15, 2023, B&L Inc., Bausch + Lomb Ireland Limited, and Eye Therapies filed a Motion for a Preliminary Injunction requesting the court to enjoin any infringing activities by DRL. Additionally, on December 18, 2023, B&L Inc., Bausch + Lomb Ireland Limited, and Eye Therapies amended its complaint to add claims for copyright infringement, as well as claims under the Lanham Act, including trademark and trade dress infringement. The lawsuit against DRL is ongoing in the District of New Jersey, with no trial date set. Bausch + Lomb remains confident in the strength of the Lumify® related patents and intends to vigorously defend its intellectual property. In addition to the intellectual property matters described above, in connection with the Vyzulta® and Lotemax® SM products, the Company has commenced ongoing infringement proceedings against a potential generic competitor in the U.S. Inter Partes Review Proceedings at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office In addition, patents covering the Company’s branded pharmaceutical products may be challenged in proceedings other than court proceedings, including inter partes review (“IPR”) at the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office. The proceedings operate under different standards from district court proceedings, and are often completed within 18 months of institution. IPR challenges have been brought against patents covering the Company’s branded pharmaceutical products. Mylan and MSN have filed IPR petitions for certain U.S. patents listed in the FDA’s Orange Book for Trulance® (plecanatide). On March 21, 2022, Mylan filed a petition for IPR of U.S. Patent No. 7,041,786 (the “’786 Patent”), which was then instituted on September 14, 2022. On October 12, 2022, MSN also filed a petition for IPR of the ’786 Patent and the PTAB then issued a decision on December 14, 2022, instituting MSN’s IPR and joining it with Mylan’s IPR. On September 8, 2023, the PTAB issued as decision finding that Mylan and MSN had not shown that the ’786 Patent is unpatentable. On September 28, 2023, Mylan appealed the PTAB’s September 8th decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. On June 21, 2023, Padagis filed an IPR petition against U.S. Patent No. 11,311,482 (the “’482 Patent”), which is Orange Book-listed for Arazlo®. In a decision dated January 12, 2024, the PTAB denied institution of an IPR against the ‘482 Patent. The Company remains confident in the strength of these patents and intends to vigorously defend its intellectual property. Product Liability Shower to Shower® Products Liability Litigation Since 2016, the Company has been named in a number of product liability lawsuits involving the Shower to Shower® body powder product acquired in September 2012 from Johnson & Johnson; due to dismissals, twenty-seven (27) of such product liability suits currently remain pending. In three (3) cases pending in the Atlantic County, New Jersey Multi-County Litigation, agreed stipulations of dismissal have been entered by the Court, thus dismissing the Company from those cases. Potential liability (including its attorneys’ fees and costs) arising out of these remaining suits is subject to full indemnification obligations of Johnson & Johnson owed to the Company and its affiliates, and legal fees and costs will be paid by Johnson & Johnson. Twenty-six (26) of these lawsuits filed by individual plaintiffs allege that the use of Shower to Shower® caused the plaintiffs to develop ovarian cancer, mesothelioma or breast cancer. The allegations in these cases include failure to warn, design defect, manufacturing defect, negligence, gross negligence, breach of express and implied warranties, civil conspiracy concert in action, negligent misrepresentation, wrongful death, loss of consortium and/or punitive damages. The damages sought include compensatory damages, including medical expenses, lost wages or earning capacity, loss of consortium and/or compensation for pain and suffering, mental anguish anxiety and discomfort, physical impairment and loss of enjoyment of life. Plaintiffs also seek pre- and post-judgment interest, exemplary and punitive damages, and attorneys’ fees. Additionally, two proposed class actions were filed in Canada against the Company and various Johnson & Johnson entities (one in the Supreme Court of British Columbia and one in the Superior Court of Quebec), on behalf of persons who have purchased or used Johnson & Johnson’s Baby Powder or Shower to Shower®. The class actions allege the use of the product increases certain health risks (British Columbia) or negligence in failing to properly test, failing to warn of health risks, and failing to remove the products from the market in a timely manner (Quebec). The plaintiffs in these actions are seeking awards of general, special, compensatory and punitive damages. On November 17, 2020, the British Columbia court issued a judgment declining to certify a class as to the Company or Shower to Shower®, and at this time no appeal of that judgment has been filed. On December 16, 2021, the plaintiff in the British Columbia class action filed a Second Amended Notice of Civil Claim and Application for Certification, removing the Company as a defendant; as a result, the British Columbia class action is concluded as to the Company. In October 2021, Johnson & Johnson, through one or more subsidiaries, purported to complete a Texas divisional merger with respect to any talc liabilities at Johnson & Johnson Consumer, Inc. (“JJCI”). LTL Management, LLC (“LTL”), the resulting entity of the divisional merger, assumed JJCI’s talc liabilities and thereafter filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of North Carolina, which in November 2021 was transferred to the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey (the “Bankruptcy Court”). The first bankruptcy case was dismissed on April 4, 2023, after a decision by the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, and LTL re-filed a new chapter 11 case in the Bankruptcy Court on the same day. Several motions to dismiss were again filed, and on August 11, 2023, the Bankruptcy Court dismissed the second chapter 11 case. On August 24, 2023, LTL and certain supporting creditors and tort claimants filed notices of appeal of the dismissal order. On October 20, 2023, the Third Circuit accepted the appeal, which remains pending. During the pendency of LTL’s bankruptcy cases, the Bankruptcy Court extended a preliminary injunction that had stayed substantially all cases subject to the indemnification agreement related to Johnson & Johnson’s talc liability, which injunction was terminated in connection with the bankruptcy case dismissal. After the dismissal of the Chapter 11 case, the Company’s and Bausch + Lomb’s position vis a vis Johnson & Johnson returned to the status quo prior to the filing. The litigation against the Company, Bausch + Lomb and other defendants is no longer stayed, and LTL and Johnson & Johnson continues to have indemnification obligations running to the Company and its affiliates, including Bausch + Lomb, for Shower to Shower® related product liability litigation. Notwithstanding the divisional merger and LTL’s bankruptcy cases, the Company and its affiliates continue to have indemnification claims and rights against Johnson & Johnson and LTL pursuant to the terms of the indemnification agreement entered into between JJCI and its affiliates and the Company and its affiliates, which indemnification agreement remains in effect. As a result, it is the Company’s current expectation that it will not incur any material impairments with respect to its indemnification claims as a result of the divisional merger or the bankruptcy. General Civil Actions U.S. Securities Litigation - New Jersey Declaratory Judgment Lawsu it On March 24, 2022, the Company and Bausch + Lomb were named in a declaratory judgment action in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Somerset County, Chancery Division, brought by certain individual investors in the Company’s common shares and debt securities who are also maintaining individual securities fraud claims against the Company and certain current or former officers and directors as part of the U.S. Securities Litigation. This action seeks a declaratory judgment that alleged transfers of certain Company assets to Bausch + Lomb would constitute a voidable transfer under the New Jersey Voidable Transactions Act and that Bausch + Lomb would be liable for damages, if any, awarded against the Company in the individual opt-out actions. The declaratory judgment action also alleges that the potential future separation of Bausch + Lomb from the Company by distribution of Bausch + Lomb stock to the Company’s shareholders would leave the Company with inadequate financial resources to satisfy these plaintiffs’ alleged securities fraud damages in the underlying individual opt-out actions. None of the plaintiffs in this declaratory judgment action have obtained a judgment against the Company in the underlying individual opt-out actions and the Company disputes the claims against it in those underlying actions. The underlying individual opt-out actions assert claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”), and certain actions assert claims under Section 18 of the Exchange Act. The allegations in those underlying individual opt out actions are made against the Company and several of its former officers and directors only and relate to, among other things, allegedly false and misleading statements made during the 2013-2016 time period by the Company and/or failures to disclose information about the Company’s business and prospects including relating to drug pricing and the use of specialty pharmacies. On March 31, 2022, the Company and Bausch + Lomb removed the declaratory judgment action to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. On April 29, 2022, Plaintiffs filed a motion to remand. On November 29, 2022, the District Court granted Plaintiffs’ remand motion and the case was remanded to the New Jersey Superior Court Chancery Division. On December 8, 2022, Plaintiffs filed a proposed Order to Show Cause and motion for a preliminary injunction, and sought interim relief including expedited discovery. On December 13, 2022, the Court denied Plaintiffs’ proposed Order to Show Cause and stayed discovery pending the resolution of the Company and Bausch + Lomb’s forthcoming motions to dismiss, while instructing the Company to provide certain notice to Plaintiffs of the intended completion of a potential future distribution referenced above under certain circumstances. On December 22, 2022, Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint which, among other things, added claims seeking injunctive relief. On January 11, 2023, the Company and Bausch + Lomb moved to dismiss the amended complaint. Briefing was complete on February 24, 2023, and the motion to dismiss was heard on March 3, 2023. On April 3, 2023, the Court issued a decision granting in part and denying in part the motion to dismiss. Both the Company and Bausch + Lomb dispute the claims in this declaratory judgment action and intend to vigorously defend this matter. California Proposition 65 Related Matter On June 19, 2019, plaintiffs filed a proposed class action in California state court against Bausch Health US and Johnson & Johnson (Gutierrez, et al. v. Johnson & Johnson, et al., Case No. 37-2019-00025810-CU-NP-CTL), asserting claims for purported violations of the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act, False Advertising Law and Unfair Competition Law in connection with their sale of talcum powder products that the plaintiffs allege violated Proposition 65 and/or the California Safe Cosmetics Act. This lawsuit was served on Bausch Health US in June 2019 and was subsequently removed to the United States District Court for the Southern District of California, where it is currently pending. Plaintiffs seek damages, disgorgement of profits, injunctive relief, and reimbursement/restitution. Bausch Health US filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ claims, which was granted in April 2020 without prejudice. In May 2020, Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint and in June 2020, filed a motion for leave to amend the complaint further, which was granted. In August 2020, Plaintiffs filed the Fifth Amended Complaint. On January 22, 2021, the Court granted the motion to dismiss with prejudice. On February 19, 2021, Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. On July 1, 2021, Appellants (Plaintiffs) filed their opening brief; Appellees’ response briefs were filed on October 8, 2021. This matter was stayed by the Ninth Circuit on December 7, 2021, due to the preliminary injunction entered by the Bankruptcy Court in the LTL bankruptcy proceeding. This stay included Appellants’ reply brief deadline, which was previously due to be filed on or before December 2, 2021. On March 9, 2022, the Ninth Circuit issued an order extending the stay through July 29, 2022. On July 29, 2022, Johnson & Johnson filed a status report in the Gutierrez appeal, outlining the developments since the last status report and the imposition of the stay. Johnson & Johnson noted that following a July 26, 2022, hearing, the Bankruptcy Court left the preliminary injunction in place, and asked the Ninth Circuit to continue to stay this action while the bankruptcy preliminary injunction remained in place. On January 20, 2023, the Ninth Circuit extended the stay until February 17, 2023. On February 17, 2023, Johnson & Johnson requested the court afford it sixty (60) days – until April 18, 2023, or seven (7) days following any lifting of the LTL Bankruptcy Court’s preliminary injunction – whichever comes earliest – to provide an additional status report about the bankruptcy proceeding and the Third Circuit dismissal for which LTL has requested a rehearing. On April 7, 2023, Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc. filed a status report regarding the bankruptcy proceeding advising the Court of the dismissal of the prior bankruptcy proceeding and the filing of the second bankruptcy proceeding, as well as the preliminary injunction and stay order, and requesting the stay of the appeal remain in place until May 10, 2023, which was granted. Following the entry of a preliminary injunction applicable to this case, which was extended until August 26, 2023, the Ninth Circuit extended the stay to June 15, 2023. On June 22, 2023, Johnson & Johnson/ LTL filed a status report requesting the stay be extended to August 26, 2023, consistent with the extension of the preliminary injunction by the bankruptcy court. On August 15, 2023, Johnson & Johnson filed a supplemental status report notifying the Ninth Circuit that the second bankruptcy proceeding was dismissed on August 11, 2023, so the stay could be lifted and briefing could proceed to conclusion and setting of oral argument. On September 13, 2023, the Ninth Circuit lifted the stay. On January 28, 2024, the Ninth Circuit issued a notice of oral argument setting the argument for Monday, April 8, 2024. Bausch Health US disputes the claims in this lawsuit and will defend it vigorously. New Mexico Attorney General Consumer Protection Action The Company and Bausch Health US were named in an action brought by State of New Mexico ex rel. Hector H. Balderas, Attorney General of New Mexico, in the County of Santa Fe New Mexico First Judicial District Court (New Mexico ex rel. Balderas v. Johnson & Johnson, et al., Civil Action No. D-101-CV-2020-00013, filed on January 2, 2020), alleging consumer protection claims against Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson Consumer, Inc., the Company and Bausch Health US related to Shower to Shower® and its alleged causal link to mesothelioma and other cancers. In April 2020, Bausch Health US filed a motion to dismiss, which in September 2020, the Court granted in part as to the New Mexico Medicaid Fraud Act and New Mexico Fraud Against Taxpayers Act claims and denied as to all other claims. The State of New Mexico brings claims against all defendants under the New Mexico Unfair Practices Act and other common law and equitable causes of action, alleging defendants engaged in wrongful marketing, sale and promotion of talcum powder products. The lawsuit seeks to recover the cost of the talcum powder products as well as the cost of treating asbestos-related cancers allegedly caused by those products. Bausch Health US filed its answer on November 16, 2020. On December 30, 2020 Johnson & Johnson filed a Motion for Partial Judgment on the Pleadings and on January 4, 2021, Bausch Health US filed a joinder to that motion, which was denied on March 8, 2021. Trial was scheduled to begin on May 30, 2023, until the case was stayed by an interlocutory appeal to the New Mexico Supreme Court by Johnson & Johnson. On July 14, 2022, LTL filed an adversary proceeding in the Bankruptcy Court (Case No. 21-30589, Adv. Pro. No. 22-01231) against the State of New Mexico ex rel. Hector H. Balderas, Attorney General, and obtained an injunction from the Bankruptcy Court barring the New Mexico Attorney General from continuing to prosecute the action while the bankruptcy case was pending. Because the Bankruptcy Court has ultimately dismissed both LTL’s first and second bankruptcy cases, this suit has returned to its status quo prior to LTL’s filing. The Company and Bausch Health US dispute the claims against them, and this lawsuit will be defended vigorously. California Consumer Protection Action On October 31, 2023, Plaintiff County of Los Angeles filed an action on behalf of the state of California against the Company and Johnson & Johnson, seeking injunctive relief, restitution and damages in California state court (People of the State of California, by and through County of Los Angeles v. Johnson & Johnson, et al., Case No. 23STCV27015). The lawsuit asserts claims for purported violations of the California False Advertising Law, Unfair Competition Law, and public nuisance claims, against multiple manufacturers of talcum powder products, including Shower to Shower®, that the plaintiffs allege caused or contributed to development of ovarian cancer and mesothelioma in residents of California. The lawsuit seeks injunctive relief, restitution, statutory penalties and damages. The Company and its affiliates dispute the claims against them, and this lawsuit will be defended vigorously. Litigation with Former Salix CEO On January 28, 2019, former Salix Pharmaceuticals, Ltd. (“Salix Ltd.”) CEO and director Carolyn Logan filed a lawsuit in the Delaware Court of Chancery, asserting claims for breach of contract and declaratory relief. On November 19, 2021, Logan amended her complaint to add a claim for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The lawsuit arose out of the contractual termination of approximately $30 million in unvested equity awards following the determination by the Salix Ltd. Board of Directors that Logan intentionally engaged in wrongdoing that resulted, or would reasonably be expected to result, in material harm to Salix Ltd., or to the business or reputation of Salix Ltd. Logan sought the restoration of the unvested equity awards and a declaration regarding certain rights related to indemnification. On September 8, 2023, Salix Ltd. and Bausch Health Americas reached an agreement in principle and, thereafter, executed, a final settlement agreement effective December 11, 2023, to resolve the matter, which includes no admission of wrongdoing or liability as to the claims asserted. On December 14, 2023, the parties filed a stipulation dismissing the case, with prejudice. Rifaximin Breach of Contract Litigation On September 8, 2022, Lupin filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against Salix Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and the Company, asserting breach of contract claims relating to a 2009 manufacturing and supply agreement between Lupin and Salix Pharmaceuticals, Inc. concerning rifaximin. On November 18, 2022, Lupin filed an Amended Complaint, which added Bausch Health US as a defendant. On March 28, 2023, the Company was dismissed without prejudice. On October 10, 2023, Salix Pharmaceuticals, Inc. asserted counterclaims against Lupin for breach of contract. No trial date has been set. Salix Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Bausch Health US dispute Lupin’s claims, and intend to defend this matter vigorously. Doctors Allergy Formula Lawsuit In April 2018, Doctors Allergy Formula, LLC (“Doctors Allergy”), filed a lawsuit against Bausch Health Americas in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York, asserting breach of contract and related claims under a 2015 Asset Purchase Agreement, which purports to include milestone payments that Doctors Allergy alleges should have been paid by Bausch Health Americas. Doctors Allergy claims its damages are not less than $23 million. Bausch Health Americas has asserted counterclaims against Doctors Allergy. Bausch Health Americas filed a motion seeking an order granting Bausch Health Americas summary judgment on its counterclaims against Plaintiff and dismissing Plaintiff’s claims against it. The motion was fully briefed as of May 2021. The Court held a hearing on the motion on January 25, 2022. On May 12, 2023, the Court issued a Decision and Order denying Bausch Health Americas’ motion. On June 14, 2023, Bausch Health Americas filed a Notice of Appeal as to the Decision and Order. Bausch Health Americas disputes the claims against it and this lawsuit will be defended vigorously. Apriso® Qui Tam Litigation In 2018, a qui tam complaint, captioned United States ex rel. Silbersher v. Valeant Pharmaceuticals Int’l, Inc., et al. (No. 4:18-cv-01496), was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against the Company, certain of its subsidiaries (collectively, the “Company”), and a third party, claiming that their alleged misrepresentations before the U.S. Patent Office ultimately resulted in false claims for payment being made to federal and state healthcare payors for Apriso®. The complaint asserts claims seeking, inter alia, damages, civil penalties and attorneys’ fees under the federal False Claims Act and the false claims acts of several states. In May 2020, the District Court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss, holding that Plaintiff-relator’s qui tam action was precluded by the False Claims Act’s public disclosure bar. Plaintiff-relator appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. In August 2023, the Court of Appeals reversed the District Court’s order and remanded to the District Court for further proceedings. In September 2023, the Company filed a petition for rehearing or rehearing en banc with the Court of Appeals. On January 5, 2024, the Court of Appeals panel denied the petition and issued an amended opinion, still reversing the District Court’s order and remanding the case to the District Court for further proceedings. On January 26, 2024, the Court of Appeals granted the Company’s motion to stay issuance of the mandate in this case for 90 days. The Company disputes the claims against it and intends to defend itself vigorously.

X
- References No definition available. + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureAbstract
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | xbrli:stringItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration

X
- Definition The entire disclosure for legal proceedings, legal contingencies, litigation, regulatory and environmental matters and other contingencies. + References Reference 1: http://fasb.org/us-gaap/role/ref/legacyRef -Topic 450 -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Publisher FASB -URI https://asc.fasb.org//450/tableOfContent + Details
Name: | us-gaap_LegalMattersAndContingenciesTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | dtr-types:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration