derivatively on behalf of the Company: Calamore v. Coleman et. al., filed April 21, 2010; Carpenters Pension Fund of West Virginia v. Weldon, et. al., filed May 5, 2010; Feldman v. Coleman, et. al., filed May 6, 2010; Hawaii Laborers Pension Fund v. Weldon, et. al., filed May 14, 2010; Ryan v. Weldon, et. al., filed June 18, 2010; and Min- neapolis Firefighters’ Relief Association, NECA-IBEW Pension Trust Fund, and NECA-IBEW Welfare Trust Fund v. Weldon, et. al., filed June 24, 2010. These actions were consolidated on August 17, 2010 into one lawsuit: In re Johnson & Johnson Shareholder Derivative Litigation. An amended consolidated complaint was filed on December 17, 2010. An additional derivative suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey on December 1, 2010: Copeland v. Mulcahy, et al. That lawsuit has been consolidated into the In re Johnson & Johnson Shareholder Derivative Litigation. Addi- tionally, Johnson & Johnson has been named the nominal defendant in a shareholder derivative lawsuit in New Jersey Superior Court on behalf of Company shareholders against certain current and former directors and officers of the Company derivatively on behalf of the Company: Wolin v. Johnson & Johnson, filed September 23, 2010. The parties to the Wolin action have stipulated that the Wolin action shall be stayed until the In re Johnson & Johnson Shareholder Derivative Litigation is completely resolved. Each of these share- holder derivative actions is similar in its claims and collectively they assert a variety of alleged breaches of fiduciary duties, including, among other things, that the defendants allegedly engaged in, approved of, or failed to remedy or prevent defective medical devices, improper pharmaceutical rebates, improper off-label mar- keting of pharmaceutical and medical device products, violations of current good manufacturing practice regulations that resulted in product recalls, and failed to disclose the aforementioned alleged misconduct in the Company’s filings under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Each complaint seeks a variety of relief, including monetary damages and corporate governance reforms. 

On July 27, 2010, a complaint was filed by a shareholder of the Company in New Jersey Superior Court, Chancery Division, Middle- sex County (Lipschutz v. Johnson & Johnson) seeking to compel inspection of Company books and records with respect to certain product recalls and various manufacturing plants. This lawsuit was dismissed on October 7, 2010. 

## OTHER 

In July 2003, Centocor (now COBI) received a request that it volun- tarily provide documents and information to the criminal division of the U.S. Attorney’s Office, District of New Jersey, in connection with its investigation into various Centocor marketing practices. Subsequent requests for documents have been received from the U.S. Attorney’s Office. Both the Company and Centocor have responded to these requests for documents and information. 

In December 2003, Ortho-McNeil Pharmaceutical, Inc. (now OMJPI) received a subpoena from the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Boston, Massachusetts seeking documents relating to the market- ing, including alleged off-label marketing, of the drug TOPAMAX® (topiramate). In the fiscal second quarter of 2010, OMJPI entered into a settlement agreement resolving the federal government’s investigation. As one part of the settlement, Ortho-McNeil Pharma- ceutical, LLC, a subsidiary of OMJPI, has pled guilty to a single mis- demeanor violation of the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act and paid a criminal fine. OMJPI denies it engaged in any wrongful conduct, beyond acknowledging the limited conduct of Ortho-McNeil Pharmaceutical, LLC, that is the basis of the misdemeanor plea. 

In addition the settlement included a civil payment, part of which was paid to the federal government and part of which was paid or set aside for payment to states for their Medicaid programs. 

In January 2004, Janssen Pharmaceutica Inc. (now OMJPI) received a subpoena from the Office of the Inspector General of the U.S. Office of Personnel Management seeking documents concerning sales and marketing of, any and all payments to physicians in connec- tion with sales andmarketing of, and clinical trials for, RISPERDAL® (risperidone) from 1997 to 2002. Documents subsequent to 2002 have also been requested. An additional subpoena seeking informa- tion about marketing of and adverse reactions to RISPERDAL® was received from the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania in November 2005. Subpoenas seeking testimony from various witnesses before a grand jury have also been received. Janssen is cooperating in responding to ongoing requests for docu- ments and witnesses. The government is continuing to actively investigate this matter. In February 2010, the government served Civil Investigative Demands seeking additional information relating to sales and marketing of RISPERDAL® and sales and marketing of INVEGA®. The focus of these matters is the alleged promotion of RISPERDAL® and INVEGA® for off-label uses. The government has notified the Company that there are pending qui tam actions alleging off-label promotion of RISPERDAL®. Discussions are ongoing in an effort to resolve potential criminal and civil claims arising from these matters. Whether a resolution can be reached and on what terms is uncertain. While a loss is probable with respect to this matter, the Company is unable to estimate a potential loss at this time. The ulti- mate resolution of these matters is not expected to have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial position, although the res- olution in any reporting period could have a material impact on the Company’s results of operations and cash flows for that period. 

In September 2004, Ortho Biotech Inc. (now COBI) received a subpoena from the U.S. Office of Inspector General’s Denver, Colorado field office seeking documents directed to the sales and marketing of PROCRIT® (Epoetin alfa) from 1997 to the present, as well as to dealings with U.S. Oncology Inc., a healthcare services network for oncologists. COBI has responded to the subpoena. 

In November 2007, the Attorney General of the Common- wealth of Massachusetts issued a Civil Investigative Demand to DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc. (DePuy) seeking information regarding financial relationships between a number of Massachusetts-based orthopedic surgeons and providers, and DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc. DePuy has responded to Massachusetts’ additional requests. 

In July 2005, Scios Inc. (Scios) received a subpoena from the U.S. Attorney’s Office, District of Massachusetts, seeking documents related to the sales and marketing of NATRECOR®. Scios responded to the subpoena. In early August 2005, Scios was advised that the investigation would be handled by the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of California in San Francisco. Additional requests for documents have been received and responded to and former Scios employees have testified before a grand jury in San Francisco. The qui tam complaints were unsealed on February 19, 2009. The U.S. government has intervened in one of the qui tam actions, and filed a complaint against Scios and the Company in June 2009. Scios and Johnson & Johnson filed a motion to dismiss the qui tam complaint filed by the government, and that motion was denied. The criminal investigation is continuing and discussions are underway in an effort to settle this matter. Whether a settlement can be reached and on what terms is uncertain. 

