| Commitments and Contingencies | Commitments and Contingencies We and certain of our subsidiaries are subject to numerous contingencies arising in the ordinary course of business. For a discussion of our tax contingencies, see Note 5B. On February 9, 2015, we entered into an accelerated share repurchase agreement with Goldman, Sachs & Co. (GS&Co.) to repurchase shares of our common stock. This agreement was entered into under our previously announced share repurchase authorization. Pursuant to the terms of the agreement, on February 11, 2015, we paid $5 billion to GS&Co. and received approximately 150 million shares of our common stock from GS&Co. On July 2, 2015, the accelerated share repurchase agreement with GS&Co. was completed, which, per the terms of the agreement, resulted in us owing GS&Co. a certain number of shares of Pfizer common stock or its equivalent dollar value. Pursuant to the agreement ’ s settlement terms, we elected to settle this amount in cash and paid an additional $160 million to GS&Co. on July 13, 2015, resulting in a total of approximately $5.2 billion paid to GS&Co. After giving effect to this accelerated share repurchase agreement, as well as other share repurchases to date in 2015, our remaining share-purchase authorization is approximately $5.4 billion . A. Legal Proceedings Our non-tax contingencies include, but are not limited to, the following: • Patent litigation, which typically involves challenges to the coverage and/or validity of our patents on various products, processes or dosage forms. We are the plaintiff in the vast majority of these actions. An adverse outcome in actions in which we are the plaintiff could result in a loss of patent protection for the drug at issue, a significant loss of revenues from that drug and impairments of any associated assets. • Product liability and other product-related litigation, which can include personal injury, consumer, off-label promotion, securities, antitrust and breach of contract claims, among others, often involves highly complex issues relating to medical causation, label warnings and reliance on those warnings, scientific evidence and findings, actual, provable injury and other matters. • Commercial and other matters, which can include merger-related and product-pricing claims and environmental claims and proceedings, can involve complexities that will vary from matter to matter. • Government investigations, which often are related to the extensive regulation of pharmaceutical companies by national, state and local government agencies in the U.S. and in other countries. Certain of these contingencies could result in losses, including damages, fines and/or civil penalties, and/or criminal charges, which could be substantial. We believe that our claims and defenses in these matters are substantial, but litigation is inherently unpredictable and excessive verdicts do occur. We do not believe that any of these matters will have a material adverse effect on our financial position. However, we could incur judgments, enter into settlements or revise our expectations regarding the outcome of certain matters, and such developments could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations in the period in which the amounts are accrued and/or our cash flows in the period in which the amounts are paid. We have accrued for losses that are both probable and reasonably estimable. Substantially all of our contingencies are subject to significant uncertainties and, therefore, determining the likelihood of a loss and/or the measurement of any loss can be complex. Consequently, we are unable to estimate the range of reasonably possible loss in excess of amounts accrued. Our assessments are based on estimates and assumptions that have been deemed reasonable by management, but the assessment process relies heavily on estimates and assumptions that may prove to be incomplete or inaccurate, and unanticipated events and circumstances may occur that might cause us to change those estimates and assumptions. Amounts recorded for legal and environmental contingencies can result from a complex series of judgments about future events and uncertainties and can rely heavily on estimates and assumptions. The principal pending matters to which we are a party are discussed below. In determining whether a pending matter is a principal matter, we consider both quantitative and qualitative factors in order to assess materiality, such as, among other things, the amount of damages and the nature of any other relief sought in the proceeding, if such damages and other relief are specified; our view of the merits of the claims and of the strength of our defenses; whether the action purports to be a class action and our view of the likelihood that a class will be certified by the court; the jurisdiction in which the proceeding is pending; any experience that we or, to our knowledge, other companies have had in similar proceedings; whether disclosure of the action would be important to a reader of our financial statements, including whether disclosure might change a reader’s judgment about our financial statements in light of all of the information about the Company that is available to the reader; the potential impact of the proceeding on our reputation; and the extent of public interest in the matter. In addition, with respect to patent matters, we consider, among other things, the financial significance of the product protected by the patent. As a result of considering qualitative factors in our determination of principal matters, there are some matters discussed below with respect to which management believes that the likelihood of possible loss in excess of amounts accrued is remote. A1. Legal Proceedings––Patent Litigation Like other pharmaceutical companies, we are involved in numerous suits relating to our patents, including but not limited to, those discussed below. Most of the suits involve claims by generic drug manufacturers that patents covering our products, processes or dosage forms are invalid and/or do not cover the product of the generic drug manufacturer. Also, counterclaims, as well as various independent actions, have been filed claiming that our assertions of, or attempts to enforce, our patent rights with respect to certain products constitute unfair competition and/or violations of antitrust laws. In addition to the challenges to the U.S. patents on a number of our products that are discussed below, we note that the patent rights to certain of our products are being challenged in various other countries. We are also a party to other patent damages suits in various jurisdictions pursuant to which generic drug manufacturers, payers, governments or other parties are seeking damages from us for alleged delay of generic entry related to patent enforcement litigation. Also, our licensing and collaboration partners face challenges by generic drug manufacturers to patents covering several of their products that may impact our licenses or co-promotion rights to such products. Actions In Which We Are The Plaintiff Sutent (sunitinib malate) In May 2010, Mylan notified us that it had filed an abbreviated new drug application with the FDA seeking approval to market a generic version of Sutent and challenging on various grounds the Sutent basic patent, which expires in 2021, and two other patents that expire in 2020 and 2021, respectively. In June 2010, we filed suit against Mylan in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware asserting the infringement of those three patents. The patent expiring in 2020 was dismissed from the case prior to trial. In October 2014, the court held that the two patents expiring in 2021 were valid and infringed. In October 2014, Mylan appealed the decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. EpiPen In July 2010, King Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (King), which we acquired in 2011 and is a wholly owned subsidiary, brought a patent-infringement action against Sandoz, Inc., a division of Novartis AG (Sandoz), in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey in connection with Sandoz ’ s abbreviated new drug application filed with the FDA seeking approval to market an epinephrine injectable product. Sandoz is challenging patents, which expire in 2025, covering the next-generation autoinjector for use with epinephrine that is sold under the EpiPen brand name. Toviaz (fesoterodine) We have an exclusive, worldwide license to market Toviaz from UCB Pharma GmbH, which owns the patents relating to Toviaz. Beginning in May 2013, several generic drug manufacturers notified us that they had filed abbreviated new drug applications with the FDA seeking approval to market generic versions of Toviaz and asserting the invalidity, unenforceability and/or non-infringement of all of our patents for Toviaz that are listed in the FDA ’ s list of Approved Drug Products with Therapeutic Equivalence Evaluations, commonly referred to as the “Orange Book”. Beginning in June 2013, we filed actions against all of those generic drug manufacturers in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, asserting the infringement of five of the patents for Toviaz: three composition-of-matter patents and a method-of-use patent that expire in 2019, and a patent covering salts of fesoterodine that expires in 2022. In June and July 2015, we settled with four of the eight generic defendants. The trial relating to the remaining defendants occurred in July 2015, and we are waiting for a ruling from the court. Tygacil (tigecycline) In May 2014, CFT Pharmaceuticals LLC (CFT) notified us that it had filed an abbreviated new drug application with the FDA seeking approval to market a generic version of Tygacil. CFT asserts the invalidity and non-infringement of the polymorph patent for Tygacil that expires in 2030 and the formulation patent for Tygacil that expires in 2029. CFT has not challenged the basic patent, which expires in 2016. In June 2014, we filed suit against CFT in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware asserting the validity and infringement of the polymorph patent and the formulation patent for Tygacil. In May 2014, Aurobindo Pharma Limited (Aurobindo) notified us that it had filed an abbreviated new drug application with the FDA seeking approval to market a generic version of Tygacil. Aurobindo asserts the invalidity and non-infringement of the polymorph patent for Tygacil and the formulation patent for Tygacil. Aurobindo has not challenged the basic patent. In July 2014, we filed suit against Aurobindo in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, asserting the validity and infringement of the polymorph patent and the formulation patent for Tygacil. Action In Which Our Licensing Partner Is The Plaintiff Nexium 24HR (esomeprazole) We have an exclusive license from AstraZeneca to market in the U.S. the over-the-counter (OTC) version of Nexium (Nexium 24HR). Beginning in October 2014, Actavis Laboratories FL, Inc., and then subsequently Andrx Labs, LLC (Andrx), Perrigo Company plc (Perrigo) and, in June 2015, Lupin Limited, notified us that they had filed abbreviated new drug applications with the FDA seeking approval to market generic versions of Nexium 24HR prior to the expiration of one or more of AstraZeneca’s patents listed in the Orange Book for Nexium 24HR. In November 2014, December 2014 and February 2015, AstraZeneca filed actions against Actavis Laboratories FL, Inc., Andrx and Perrigo, respectively, in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey asserting the infringement of the challenged patents. We are not a party to AstraZeneca’s patent-infringement actions. Action In Which We Are The Defendant Effexor XR (venlafaxine HCI) In 2006, Wyeth and Wyeth Canada Limited (the Wyeth companies) filed an action in the Federal Court in Canada against Ratiopharm Inc. (Ratiopharm) seeking to prevent Ratiopharm from obtaining approval in Canada for its generic version of Effexor XR prior to the expiration of one of the Wyeth companies’ patents. As a result of that action, Ratiopharm was enjoined from obtaining regulatory approval for its generic product. However, in August 2007, the Federal Court of Appeal in Canada ruled that the patent at issue could not be asserted against Ratiopharm under the applicable Canadian regulations governing approvals, and it dismissed the Wyeth companies’ action. Following the dismissal, in 2007, Ratiopharm filed an action in the Federal Court in Canada seeking damages from the Wyeth companies for preventing Ratiopharm from marketing its generic version of Effexor XR in Canada from January 2006 through August 2007. The Federal Court dismissed Ratiopharm’s action in 2011, but the Federal Court of Appeal reinstated it in 2012. In 2011 and 2012, Pfizer made payments to Teva Canada Limited, which had acquired Ratiopharm, totaling Canadian dollars 52.5 million in partial settlement of this action. The trial in this action was held in January 2014, and the court issued various findings in March 2014. On June 30, 2014, the Federal Court in Canada issued a judgment based on those findings, awarding Teva Canada Limited damages of approximately Canadian dollars 125 million , consisting of compensatory damages, pre-judgment interest and legal costs. This judgment was satisfied by Pfizer Canada Inc., as successor to the Wyeth companies, in July 2014. In September 2014, Pfizer Canada Inc. appealed the judgment. A2. Legal Proceedings––Product Litigation Like other pharmaceutical companies, we are defendants in numerous cases, including but not limited to those discussed below, related to our pharmaceutical and other products. Plaintiffs in these cases seek damages and other relief on various grounds for alleged personal injury and economic loss. Asbestos Between 1967 and 1982, Warner-Lambert owned American Optical Corporation, which manufactured and sold respiratory protective devices and asbestos safety clothing. In connection with the sale of American Optical in 1982, Warner-Lambert agreed to indemnify the purchaser for certain liabilities, including certain asbestos-related and other claims. As of June 28, 2015 , approximately 58,760 claims naming American Optical and numerous other defendants were pending in various federal and state courts seeking damages for alleged personal injury from exposure to asbestos and other allegedly hazardous materials. Warner-Lambert was acquired by Pfizer in 2000 and is now a wholly owned subsidiary of Pfizer. Warner-Lambert is actively engaged in the defense of, and will continue to explore various means of resolving, these claims. Numerous lawsuits are pending against Pfizer in various federal and state courts seeking damages for alleged personal injury from exposure to products containing asbestos and other allegedly hazardous materials sold by Gibsonburg Lime Products Company (Gibsonburg). Gibsonburg was acquired by Pfizer in the 1960s and sold products containing small amounts of asbestos until the early 1970s. There also are a small number of lawsuits pending in various federal and state courts seeking damages for alleged exposure to asbestos in facilities owned or formerly owned by Pfizer or its subsidiaries. Celebrex and Bextra Beginning in late 2004, several purported class actions were filed in federal and state courts alleging that Pfizer and certain of our current and former officers violated federal securities laws by misrepresenting the safety of Celebrex and Bextra. In June 2005, the federal actions were transferred for consolidated pre-trial proceedings to a Multi-District Litigation ( In re Pfizer Inc. Securities, Derivative and “ERISA” Litigation MDL-1688 ) in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. In March 2012, the court in the Multi-District Litigation certified a class consisting of all persons who purchased or acquired Pfizer stock between October 31, 2000 and October 19, 2005. In May 2014, the court in the Multi-District Litigation granted Pfizer’s motion to exclude the testimony of the plaintiffs’ loss causation and damages expert. We subsequently filed a motion for summary judgment seeking dismissal of the litigation, and the plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to submit an amended report by their expert. In July 2014, the court denied the plaintiffs’ motion for leave to submit an amended report, and granted our motion for summary judgment, dismissing the plaintiffs’ claims in their entirety. In August 2014, the plaintiffs appealed the District Court’s decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Effexor • Personal Injury Actions A number of individual lawsuits and multi-plaintiff lawsuits have been filed against us and/or our subsidiaries in various federal and state courts alleging personal injury as a result of the purported ingestion of Effexor. Among other types of actions, the Effexor personal injury litigation includes actions alleging a variety of birth defects as a result of the purported ingestion of Effexor by women during pregnancy. Plaintiffs in these birth-defect actions seek compensatory and punitive damages. In August 2013, the federal birth-defect cases were transferred for consolidated pre-trial proceedings to a Multi-District Litigation ( In re Effexor (Venlafaxine Hydrochloride) Products Liability Litigation MDL-2458 ) in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. A number of plaintiffs have voluntarily dismissed their actions. • Antitrust Actions Beginning in May 2011, actions, including purported class actions, were filed in various federal courts against Wyeth and, in certain of the actions, affiliates of Wyeth and certain other defendants relating to Effexor XR, which is the extended-release formulation of Effexor. The plaintiffs in each of the class actions seek to represent a class consisting of all persons in the U.S. and its territories who directly purchased, indirectly purchased or reimbursed patients for the purchase of Effexor XR or generic Effexor XR from any of the defendants from June 14, 2008 until the time the defendants’ allegedly unlawful conduct ceased. The plaintiffs in all of the actions allege delay in the launch of generic Effexor XR in the U.S. and its territories, in violation of federal antitrust laws and, in certain of the actions, the antitrust, consumer protection and various other laws of certain states, as the result of Wyeth fraudulently obtaining and improperly listing certain patents for Effexor XR in the Orange Book, enforcing certain patents for Effexor XR, and entering into a litigation settlement agreement with a generic drug manufacturer with respect to Effexor XR. Each of the plaintiffs seeks treble damages (for itself in the individual actions or on behalf of the putative class in the purported class actions) for alleged price overcharges for Effexor XR or generic Effexor XR in the U.S. and its territories since June 14, 2008. All of these actions have been consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. In October 2014, the District Court dismissed the direct purchaser plaintiffs’ claims based on the litigation settlement agreement, but declined to dismiss the other direct purchaser plaintiff claims. In January 2015, the District Court entered partial final judgments as to all settlement agreement claims, including those asserted by direct purchasers and end-payer plaintiffs, which plaintiffs have appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. Motions to dismiss remain pending as to the end-payer plaintiffs ’ remaining claims. Zoloft A number of individual lawsuits and multi-plaintiff lawsuits have been filed against us and/or our subsidiaries in various federal and state courts alleging personal injury as a result of the purported ingestion of Zoloft. Among other types of actions, the Zoloft personal injury litigation includes actions alleging a variety of birth defects as a result of the purported ingestion of Zoloft by women during pregnancy. Plaintiffs in these birth-defect actions seek compensatory and punitive damages and the disgorgement of profits resulting from the sale of Zoloft. In April 2012, the federal birth-defect cases were transferred for consolidated pre-trial proceedings to a Multi-District Litigation ( In re Zoloft Products Liability Litigation MDL-2342 ) in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. A number of plaintiffs have voluntarily dismissed their actions. Lipitor • Whistleblower Action In 2004, a former employee filed a “whistleblower” action against us in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York. The complaint remained under seal until September 2007, at which time the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of New York declined to intervene in the case. We were served with the complaint in December 2007. Plaintiff alleges off-label promotion of Lipitor in violation of the Federal Civil False Claims Act and the false claims acts of certain states, and he seeks treble damages and civil penalties on behalf of the federal government and the specified states as the result of their purchase, or reimbursement of patients for the purchase, of Lipitor allegedly for such off-label uses. Plaintiff also seeks compensation as a whistleblower under those federal and state statutes. In addition, plaintiff alleges that he was wrongfully terminated, in violation of the anti-retaliation provisions of applicable federal and New York law, and he seeks damages and the reinstatement of his employment. In 2009, the District Court dismissed without prejudice the off-label promotion claims and, in 2010, plaintiff filed an amended complaint containing off-label promotion allegations that are substantially similar to the allegations in the original complaint. In November 2012, the District Court dismissed the amended complaint. In December 2012, plaintiff appealed the District Court ’ s decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. In August 2014, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction and sent the case back to the District Court for clarification of its ruling regarding the plaintiff ’ s employment claims. In November 2014, the District Court granted plaintiff’s motion for a partial final judgment certifying the dismissal of the false claims counts, and plaintiff appealed the order dismissing those claims to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. • Antitrust Actions Beginning in November 2011, purported class actions relating to Lipitor were filed in various federal courts against, among others, Pfizer, certain affiliates of Pfizer, and, in most of the actions, Ranbaxy, Inc. (Ranbaxy) and certain affiliates of Ranbaxy. The plaintiffs in these various actions seek to represent nationwide, multi-state or statewide classes consisting of persons or entities who directly purchased, indirectly purchased or reimbursed patients for the purchase of Lipitor (or, in certain of the actions, generic Lipitor) from any of the defendants from March 2010 until the cessation of the defendants’ allegedly unlawful conduct (the Class Period). The plaintiffs allege delay in the launch of generic Lipitor, in violation of federal antitrust laws and/or state antitrust, consumer protection and various other laws, resulting from (i) the 2008 agreement pursuant to which Pfizer and Ranbaxy settled certain patent litigation involving Lipitor, and Pfizer granted Ranbaxy a license to sell a generic version of Lipitor in various markets beginning on varying dates, and (ii) in certain of the actions, the procurement and/or enforcement of certain patents for Lipitor. Each of the actions seeks, among other things, treble damages on behalf of the putative class for alleged price overcharges for Lipitor (or, in certain of the actions, generic Lipitor) during the Class Period. In addition, individual actions have been filed against Pfizer, Ranbaxy and certain of their affiliates, among others, that assert claims and seek relief for the plaintiffs that are substantially similar to the claims asserted and the relief sought in the purported class actions described above. These various actions have been consolidated for pre-trial proceedings in a Multi-District Litigation ( In re Lipitor Antitrust Litigation MDL-2332 ) in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. In September 2013 and 2014, the District Court dismissed with prejudice the claims by direct purchasers. In October and November 2014, the District Court dismissed with prejudice the claims of all other MDL plaintiffs. All plaintiffs have appealed the District Court’s orders dismissing their claims with prejudice to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. In addition, the direct purchaser class plaintiffs appealed the order denying their motion to amend the judgment and for leave to amend their complaint to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. Also, in January 2013, the State of West Virginia filed an action in West Virginia state court against Pfizer and Ranbaxy, among others, that asserts claims and seeks relief on behalf of the State of West Virginia and residents of that state that are substantially similar to the claims asserted and the relief sought in the purported class actions described above. • Personal Injury Actions A number of individual and multi-plaintiff lawsuits have been filed against us in various federal and state courts alleging that the plaintiffs developed type 2 diabetes as a result of the purported ingestion of Lipitor. Plaintiffs seek compensatory and punitive damages. In February 2014, the federal actions were transferred for consolidated pre-trial proceedings to a Multi-District Litigation ( In re Lipitor (Atorvastatin Calcium) Marketing, Sales Practices and Products Liability Litigation (No. II) MDL-2502 ) in the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina. Chantix/Champix Beginning in December 2008, purported class actions were filed against us in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (Toronto Region), the Superior Court of Quebec (District of Montreal), the Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta, Judicial District of Calgary, and the Superior Court of British Columbia (Vancouver Registry) on behalf of all individuals and third-party payers in Canada who have purchased and ingested Champix or reimbursed patients for the purchase of Champix. Each of these actions asserts claims under Canadian product liability law, including with respect to the safety and efficacy of Champix, and, on behalf of the putative class, seeks monetary relief, including punitive damages. In June 2012, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice certified the Ontario proceeding as a class action, defining the class as consisting of the following: (i) all persons in Canada who ingested Champix during the period from April 2, 2007 to May 31, 2010 and who experienced at least one of a number of specified neuropsychiatric adverse events; (ii) all persons who are entitled to assert claims in respect of Champix pursuant to Canadian legislation as the result of their relationship with a class member; and (iii) all health insurers who are entitled to assert claims in respect of Champix pursuant to Canadian legislation. The Ontario Superior Court of Justice certified the class against Pfizer Canada Inc. only and ruled that the action against Pfizer should be stayed until after the trial of the issues that are common to the class members. The actions in Quebec, Alberta and British Columbia have been stayed in favor of the Ontario action, which is proceeding on a national basis. Celebrex Beginning in July 2014, purported class actions were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia against Pfizer and certain subsidiaries of Pfizer relating to Celebrex. The plaintiffs seek to represent U.S. nationwide or multi-state classes consisting of persons or entities who directly purchased from the defendants, or indirectly purchased or reimbursed patients for some or all of the purchase price of, Celebrex or generic Celebrex from May 31, 2014 until the cessation of the defendants’ allegedly unlawful conduct. The plaintiffs allege delay in the launch of generic Celebrex in violation of federal antitrust laws or certain state antitrust, consumer protection and various other laws as a result of Pfizer fraudulently obtaining and improperly listing a patent on Celebrex, engaging in sham litigation, and prolonging the impact of sham litigation through settlement activity that further delayed generic entry. Each of the actions seeks treble damages on behalf of the putative class for alleged price overcharges for Celebrex since May 31, 2014. In December 2014, the District Court granted the parties’ joint motions to consolidate the direct purchaser and end-payer cases, and all such cases were consolidated as of March 2015. In October 2014 and March 2015, we filed motions to dismiss the direct purchasers’ and end-payers’ amended complaints, respectively. Reglan Reglan is a pro-motility medicine for the treatment of gastroesophageal reflux disease and diabetic gastroparesis that was marketed by Wyeth and a predecessor company from 1979 until the end of 2001, when Wyeth sold the product and transferred the new drug application to another pharmaceutical company. Generic versions of Reglan have been sold by other companies since 1985. Pfizer, as Wyeth’s parent company, and certain wholly owned subsidiaries and limited liability companies, including Wyeth, along with several other pharmaceutical manufacturers, have been named as defendants in numerous actions in various federal and state courts alleging personal injury resulting from the use of Reglan and/or generic equivalents thereof. Plaintiffs in these actions seek to hold the defendants, including Pfizer and its affiliated companies, liable for a variety of personal injuries, including movement disorders such as Tardive Dyskinesia, allegedly resulting from the ingestion of Wyeth’s product and/or products sold by other companies. A substantial majority of the claims involve the ingestion of generic versions of Reglan produced and sold by other companies. Claims against Pfizer and its affiliated companies are largely based on the novel theory of innovator liability under which plaintiffs allege that an innovator pharmaceutical company can be liable for injuries caused by the ingestion of generic forms of the product produced and sold by other companies. This theory of liability has been rejected by more than 100 federal and state courts, applying the laws of 30 states. However, a small number of courts have adopted the theory, including the Alabama Supreme Court in August 2014. In May 2015, the Governor of Alabama signed legislation that abolishes the innovator liability theory in Alabama for any cases filed on or after November 1, 2015. Actions have been filed under the laws of multiple jurisdictions, including Alabama, and additional actions may be filed in the future. A3. Legal Proceedings––Commercial and Other Matters Average Wholesale Price Litigation Pfizer, certain of its subsidiaries and other pharmaceutical manufacturers were sued in various state courts by a number of states alleging that the defendants provided average wholesale price (AWP) information for certain of their products that was higher than the actual average prices at which those products were sold. The AWP is used to determine reimbursement levels under Medicare Part B and Medicaid and in many private-sector insurance policies and medical plans. All but two of those actions have been resolved through settlement, dismissal or final judgment. The plaintiff states in the two remaining actions claim that the alleged spread between the AWPs at which purchasers were reimbursed and the actual sale prices was promoted by the defendants as an incentive to purchase certain of their products. In addition to suing on their own behalf, the two states seek to recover on behalf of individuals, private-sector insurance companies and medical plans in their states. These actions allege, among other things, fraud, unfair competition, unfair trade practices and the violation of consumer protection statutes, and seek monetary and other relief, including civil penalties and treble damages. Monsanto-Related Matters In 1997, Monsanto Company (Former Monsanto) contributed certain chemical manufacturing operations and facilities to a newly formed corporation, Solutia Inc. (Solutia), and spun off the shares of Solutia. In 2000, Former Monsanto merged with Pharmacia & Upjohn Company to form Pharmacia C |
