| LEGAL PROCEEDINGS | LEGAL PROCEEDINGS Bausch + Lomb is involved, and, from time to time, may become involved, in various legal and administrative proceedings, which include or may 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, Bausch + Lomb also initiates or may initiate actions or file counterclaims. Bausch + Lomb could be subject to counterclaims or other suits in response to actions it may initiate. Bausch + Lomb believes that the prosecution of these actions and counterclaims is important to preserve and protect Bausch + Lomb, its reputation and its assets. On a quarterly basis, Bausch + Lomb evaluates developments in legal proceedings, potential settlements and other matters that could increase or decrease the amount of the liability accrued. As of March 31, 2024, Bausch + Lomb’s Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets includes accrued current loss contingencies of $4 million related to matters which are both probable and reasonably estimable. For all other matters, unless otherwise indicated, Bausch + Lomb 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 Bausch + Lomb’s business, financial condition and results of operations, and could cause the market value of its common shares and/or debt securities to decline. Antitrust Generic Pricing Antitrust Litigation BHC’s subsidiaries, Oceanside Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 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 U.S. 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 are 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, and various Counties, Cities, and Towns, are consolidated into the MDL. There are also additional, separate complaints which are consolidated in the same MDL that do not name the Company or any of its subsidiaries as a defendant. 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 Bausch Health US and Bausch Health Americas are defendants has been remanded to and is pending in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut. 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 put in deferred status. The Company disputes the claims against it and these cases will be defended vigorously. Additionally, BHC 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 this case will be defended vigorously. These lawsuits cover products of both Bausch + Lomb and BHC’s other businesses. It is anticipated that Bausch + Lomb and BHC 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 MSA. Product Liability Shower to Shower ® Products Liability Litigation Since 2016, BHC and its affiliates, including Bausch + Lomb, have 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 BHC and its affiliates, including Bausch + Lomb, 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 BHC 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 BHC 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 BHC as a defendant; as a result, the British Columbia class action is concluded as to BHC. 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, BHC’s and Bausch + Lomb’s position vis a vis Johnson & Johnson returned to the status quo prior to the filing. The litigation against BHC, Bausch + Lomb and other defendants is no longer stayed, and LTL and Johnson & Johnson continues to have indemnification obligations running to BHC and its affiliates, including Bausch + Lomb, for Shower to Shower ® related product liability litigation. Notwithstanding the divisional merger and LTL’s bankruptcy cases, BHC and Bausch + Lomb 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 BHC and its affiliates, which indemnification agreement remains in effect. As a result, it is Bausch + Lomb’s current expectation that BHC and Bausch + Lomb 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 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 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 that the court afford it 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 the 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 April 8, 2024, the Ninth Circuit heard oral argument on Plaintiffs' appeal of the lower court's dismissal of the case with prejudice, and, on April 29, 2024, the Ninth Circuit issued a memorandum disposition that affirmed the dismissal of the case in full. Bausch Health US disputes the claims in this lawsuit and will defend it vigorously. New Mexico Attorney General Consumer Protection Actio n BHC 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., BHC 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. BHC 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. Pursuant to an agreed stipulation, responses to the Complaint will be due May 13, 2024. The Company and its affiliates dispute the claims against them, and this lawsuit will be defended vigorously. U.S. Securities Litigation - New Jersey Declaratory Judgment Lawsuit On March 24, 2022, BHC 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 BHC’s common shares and debt securities who are also maintaining individual securities fraud claims against BHC 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 BHC 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 BHC in the individual opt-out actions. The declaratory judgment action also alleges that the potential future separation of Bausch + Lomb from BHC by distribution of Bausch + Lomb stock to BHC’s shareholders would leave BHC 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 BHC in the underlying individual opt-out actions and BHC 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 BHC 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 BHC and/or failures to disclose information about BHC’s business and prospects, including relating to drug pricing and the use of specialty pharmacies. On March 31, 2022, BHC 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 BHC’s and Bausch + Lomb’s forthcoming motions to dismiss, while instructing BHC 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, BHC 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. Discovery is ongoing. Both BHC and Bausch + Lomb dispute the claims in this declaratory judgment action and intend to vigorously defend this matter. 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 Bausch Health Americas. 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 to the Appellate Division of the New York Supreme Court, First Department. On March 13, 2024, Bausch Health Americas filed its appellant motion and brief with the Appellate Division of the New York Supreme Court, First Department, appealing the trial court’s denial of Bausch Health America’s motion for summary judgment. Doctors Allergy is due to file its answering brief on or before June 28, 2024, and Bausch Health Americas is due to file its reply brief on or before August 16, 2024. The Appellate Division has not set a date for oral argument. Bausch Health Americas disputes the claims against it and this lawsuit will be defended vigorously. Intellectual Property Matters 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 - DRL 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 Abbreviated New Drug Application (“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 (the “ PTAB ” ) 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 (U.S. 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”) . 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 and a hearing was held in January. The parties are awaiting a decision. 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. DRL subsequently petitioned for inter partes review (“IPR”) of U.S. Patent Nos. 11,596,600 and 11,833,245 and the PTAB has not yet issued a decision as to institution of either IPR. 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. |
