## Byetta* 

Amylin, a former subsidiary of BMS, and Lilly are co-defendants in product liability litigation related to Byetta*.  To date, there are approximately 580 separate lawsuits pending on behalf of approximately 2,225 active plaintiffs (including pending settlements), which include injury plaintiffs as well as claims by spouses and/or other beneficiaries, in various courts in the U.S. The majority of these cases have been brought by individuals who allege personal injury sustained after using Byetta* , primarily pancreatic cancer, and, in some cases, claiming alleged wrongful death. The majority of cases are pending in federal court in San Diego in an MDL or in a coordinated proceeding in California Superior Court in Los Angeles (“JCCP”). In November 2015, the defendants ’  motion for summary judgment based on federal preemption was granted in both the MDL and the JCCP. In November 2017, the Ninth Circuit reversed the MDL summary judgment order and remanded the case to the MDL. In November 2018, the California Court of Appeal reversed the state court summary judgment order and remanded those cases to the JCCP for further proceedings. Amylin had product liability insurance covering a substantial number of claims involving Byetta* (which has been exhausted). As part of BMS ’ s global diabetes business divestiture, BMS sold Byetta*  to AstraZeneca in February 2014 and any additional liability to Amylin with respect to Byetta*  is expected to be shared with AstraZeneca. 

## Onglyza* 

BMS and AstraZeneca are co-defendants in product liability litigation related to Onglyza* . Plaintiffs assert claims, including claims for wrongful death, as a result of heart failure or other cardiovascular injuries they allege were caused by their use of Onglyza* . As of January 2020, claims are pending in state and federal court on behalf of approximately 290 individuals who allege they ingested the product and suffered an injury. In February 2018, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ordered all federal cases to be transferred to an MDL in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky. A significant majority of the claims are pending in the MDL. As part of BMS’s global diabetes business divestiture, BMS sold Onglyza*  to AstraZeneca in February 2014 and any potential liability with respect to Onglyza*  is expected to be shared with AstraZeneca. 

## SECURITIES LITIGATION 

## BMS Securities Class Action 

Since February 2018, two separate putative class action complaints were filed in the U.S. District for the Northern District of California and in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against BMS, BMS’s Chief Executive Officer, Giovanni Caforio, BMS’s Chief Financial Officer at the time, Charles A. Bancroft and certain former and current executives of BMS. The case in California has been voluntarily dismissed. The remaining complaint alleges violations of securities laws for BMS’s disclosures related to the CheckMate-026 clinical trial in lung cancer. In September 2019, the Court granted BMS ’ s motion to dismiss, but allowed the plaintiffs leave to file an amended complaint. In October 2019, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. BMS has moved to dismiss the amended complaint. 

## Celgene Securities Class Action 

Beginning in March 2018, two  putative class actions were filed against Celgene  and certain of its  officers in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey (the “Celgene Securities Class Action”). The complaints allege that the defendants violated federal securities laws by making misstatements and/or omissions concerning (1) trials of GED-0301, (2) Celgene’s 2020 outlook and projected sales of Otezla , and (3) the new drug application for Ozanimod . The Court consolidated the two actions and appointed a lead plaintiff, lead counsel, and co-liaison counsel for the putative class. In February 2019, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss plaintiff’s amended complaint in full . In December 2019, the Court denied the motion to dismiss in part and granted the motion to dismiss in part (including all claims arising from alleged misstatements regarding GED- 0301). Although the Court gave the plaintiff leave to re-plead the dismissed claims, it elected not to do so, and the dismissed claims are now dismissed with prejudice. No trial date has been set for the claims that survived the Court’s order. 

## Gerold Derivative Action 

On October 11, 2018, Sam Baran Gerold filed a shareholder derivative complaint against certain members of Celgene’s board of directors in the Superior Court of New Jersey. The complaint alleges that (i) the defendants breached certain fiduciary duties related to, among other things, its actions with respect to clinical trials of GED-0301, Otezla , and the new drug application for Ozanimod and (ii) because of the breach, the defendants caused Celgene to waste its corporate assets and the defendants were unjustly enriched. In October 2018, the defendants removed this matter to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. On January 3, 2020, the parties entered into a stipulation and proposed order voluntarily dismissing this matter without prejudice, which the Court entered  on January 6, 2020 . 

