| Contingencies and Certain Commitments | Contingencies and Certain Commitments We and certain of our subsidiaries are subject to numerous contingencies arising in the ordinary course of business, including tax and legal contingencies. The following outlines our legal contingencies. For a discussion of our tax contingencies, see Note 5B. A. Legal Proceedings Our legal contingencies include, but are not limited to, the following: • Patent litigation, which typically involves challenges to the coverage and/or validity of patents on various products, processes or dosage forms. An adverse outcome could result in loss of patent protection for a product, a significant loss of revenues from a product or impairment of the value of associated assets. We are the plaintiff in the majority of these actions. • Product liability and other product-related litigation related to current or former products, which can include personal injury, consumer, off-label promotion, securities, antitrust and breach of contract claims, among others, and 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 asserted or unasserted matters, which can include acquisition-, licensing-, intellectual property-, collaboration- or co-promotion-related and product-pricing claims and environmental claims and proceedings, and 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 jurisdictions. Certain of these contingencies could result in increased expenses and/or losses, including damages, royalty payments, fines and/or civil penalties, which could be substantial, and/or criminal charges. We believe that our claims and defenses in matters in which we are a defendant 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 matters, which could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations and/or our cash flows in the period in which the amounts are accrued or 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, which result from a complex series of judgments about future events and uncertainties, are based on estimates and assumptions that have been deemed reasonable by management, but 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. For proceedings under environmental laws to which a governmental authority is a party, we have adopted a disclosure threshold of $1 million in potential or actual governmental monetary sanctions. 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 to assess materiality, such as, among others, the amount of damages and the nature of other relief sought, if specified; our view of the merits of the claims and of the strength of our defenses; whether the action purports to be, or is, a class action and, if not certified, our view of the likelihood that a class will be certified by the court; the jurisdiction in which the proceeding is pending; whether related actions have been transferred to multidistrict litigation; 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 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 in which we are the plaintiff, we consider, among other things, the financial significance of the product protected by the patent(s) at issue. Some of the matters discussed below include those which management believes that the likelihood of possible loss in excess of amounts accrued is remote. A1. Legal Proceedings––Patent Litigation We are involved in suits relating to our patents, including but not limited to, those discussed below. Most involve claims by generic drug manufacturers that patents covering our products (or those of our collaboration/licensing partners to which we have licenses or co-promotion rights and to which we may or may not be a party), 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 alleging that our assertions of, or attempts to enforce, 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 that are discussed below, patent rights to certain of our products or those of our collaboration/licensing partners are being challenged in various other jurisdictions. Some of our collaboration or licensing partners face challenges to the validity of their patent rights in non-U.S. jurisdictions. For example, in April 2022, the U.K. High Court issued a judgment finding invalid a BMS patent related to Eliquis due to expire in 2026. In November 2022, BMS received permission to appeal the High Court’s decision. Additional challenges remain pending in other jurisdictions. Also, for example, in July 2022, CureVac AG (CureVac) brought a patent infringement action against BioNTech and certain of its subsidiaries in the German Regional Court alleging that Comirnaty infringes certain German utility model patents and certain expired and unexpired European patents. Additional challenges involving Comirnaty patents may be filed against us and/or BioNTech in other jurisdictions in the future. In addition, in October 2022, Accord Healthcare Ltd. brought suit in the U.K. against the Regents of the University of California challenging the validity of the U.K. patent covering the active ingredient in Xtandi, which expires in 2028. Adverse decisions in these matters could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations. We are also party to patent damages suits in various jurisdictions pursuant to which generic drug manufacturers, payers, governments or other parties are seeking damages from us for allegedly causing delay of generic entry. We also are often involved in other proceedings, such as inter partes review, post-grant review, re-examination or opposition proceedings, before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, the European Patent Office, or other foreign counterparts relating to our intellectual property or the intellectual property rights of others. Also, if one of our patents is found to be invalid by such proceedings, generic or competitive products could be introduced into the market resulting in the erosion of sales of our existing products. For example, several of the patents in our pneumococcal vaccine portfolio have been challenged in inter partes review and post-grant review proceedings in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. In addition, another patent was challenged in federal court in Delaware; and that case was settled in September 2021 on terms not material to the company. Other challenges to pneumococcal vaccine patents remain pending at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board and outside the U.S. The invalidation of any of the patents in our pneumococcal portfolio could potentially allow additional competitor vaccines, if approved, to enter the marketplace earlier than anticipated. In the event that any of the patents are found valid and infringed, a competitor’s vaccine, if approved, might be prohibited from entering the market or a competitor might be required to pay us a royalty. We are also subject to patent litigation pursuant to which one or more third parties seek damages and/or injunctive relief to compensate for alleged infringement of its patents by our commercial or other activities. For example, our Hospira subsidiaries are involved in patent and patent-related disputes over their attempts to bring generic pharmaceutical products to market. If one of our marketed products is found to infringe valid patent rights of a third party, such third party may be awarded significant damages or royalty payments, or we may be prevented from further sales of that product. Such damages may be enhanced as much as three-fold if we or one of our subsidiaries is found to have willfully infringed valid patent rights of a third party. Actions In Which We Are The Plaintiff Xeljanz (tofacitinib) Beginning in 2017, we brought patent-infringement actions against several generic manufacturers that filed separate ANDAs with the FDA seeking approval to market their generic versions of tofacitinib tablets in one or both of 5 mg and 10 mg dosage strengths, and in both immediate and extended release forms. To date, we have settled actions with several manufacturers on terms not material to us. The remaining actions continue in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware as described below. In October 2021, we brought a separate patent-infringement action against Sinotherapeutics Inc. (Sinotherapeutics) asserting the infringement and validity of our patent covering extended release formulations of tofacitinib that was challenged by Sinotherapeutics in its ANDA seeking approval to market a generic version of tofacitinib 11 mg extended release tablets. In June 2022, we brought a separate patent infringement action against MSN Laboratories Private Ltd. (MSN) asserting the infringement and validity of our compound patent covering the active agreement that was challenged by MSN in its ANDAs seeking approval to market generic versions of tofacitinib immediate release tablets (5 mg, 10 mg) and oral solution 1 mg/mL. In August 2022, we settled our action against MSN on terms not material to us. Inlyta (axitinib) In 2019, Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (Glenmark) notified us that it had filed an ANDA with the FDA seeking approval to market a generic version of Inlyta. Glenmark asserts the invalidity and non-infringement of the crystalline form patent for Inlyta that expires in 2030. In 2019, we filed suit against Glenmark in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, asserting the validity and infringement of the crystalline form patent for Inlyta. Ibrance (palbociclib) Beginning in January 2021, several generic companies notified us that they had filed ANDAs with the FDA seeking approval to market generic versions of Ibrance tablets. The generic companies are challenging some or all of the following patents: (i) the composition of matter patent expiring in 2027; (ii) the composition of matter patent expiring in 2023; (iii) the method of use patent expiring in 2023; (iv) the crystalline form patent expiring in 2034; and (v) a tablet formulation patent expiring in 2036. We brought patent infringement actions against each of the generic filers in various U.S. federal courts, asserting the validity and infringement of the patents challenged by the generic companies. We have settled with one of these generic companies on terms not material to us, and we dismissed the patent infringement actions relating to the crystalline form of patent, the composition of matter patent expiring in 2023, the method of use patent, and the tablet formulation patent against the generic companies that had challenged these patents. The composition of matter patent expiring in 2027 remains in suit. Eucrisa Beginning in September 2021, several generic companies notified us that they had filed ANDAs with the FDA seeking approval to market generic versions of Eucrisa. The companies assert the invalidity and non-infringement of a composition of matter patent expiring in 2026, two method of use patents expiring in 2027, and one other method of use patent expiring in 2030. In September 2021, we brought patent infringement actions against the generic filers in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, asserting the validity and infringement of the patents challenged by the generic companies. Braftovi (encorafenib) In August 2022, a generic company notified us that it had filed an ANDA with the FDA seeking approval to market a generic version of Braftovi. The company asserts the invalidity and non-infringement of, among others, a method of use patent expiring in 2033. In September 2022, we brought a patent infringement action against the generic company in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, asserting the validity and infringement of the method of use patent expiring in 2033. Mektovi (binimetinib) Beginning in August 2022, several generic companies notified us that they had filed ANDAs with the FDA seeking approval to market generic versions of Mektovi. The companies assert the invalidity and non-infringement of two method of use patents expiring in 2030, a method of use patent expiring in 2031, two method of use patents expiring in 2033, and a product by process patent expiring in 2033. Beginning in September 2022, we brought patent infringement actions against the generic filers in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, asserting the validity and infringement of all six patents. Actions in Which We are the Defendant Comirnaty In March 2022, Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Alnylam) filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware against Pfizer and Pharmacia & Upjohn Co. LLC, our wholly owned subsidiary, alleging that Comirnaty infringes U.S. Patent No. 11,246,933, which was issued in February 2022, and seeking unspecified monetary damages. In July 2022, Alnylam filed a second complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware against Pfizer, Pharmacia & Upjohn Co. LLC, BioNTech and BioNTech Manufacturing GmbH, alleging that Comirnaty infringes U.S. Patent No. 11,382,979, which was issued in July 2022, and seeking unspecified monetary damages. In August 2022, ModernaTX, Inc. (ModernaTX) and Moderna US, Inc. (Moderna) sued Pfizer, BioNTech, BioNTech Manufacturing GmbH and BioNTech US Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, alleging that Comirnaty infringes three U.S. patents. In its complaint, Moderna stated that it is seeking damages for alleged infringement occurring only after March 7, 2022. In August 2022, ModernaTX filed a patent infringement action in Germany against Pfizer and certain subsidiary companies, as well as BioNTech and certain subsidiary companies, alleging that Comirnaty infringes two European patents. In September 2022, ModernaTX filed patent infringement actions in the U.K and in the Netherlands against Pfizer Inc. and certain subsidiary companies, as well as BioNTech and certain subsidiary companies, on the same two patents. In its complaints, Moderna stated that it is seeking damages for alleged infringement occurring only after March 7, 2022. In the U.K., Pfizer and BioNTech have brought an action against ModernaTX seeking to revoke these European patents. Paxlovid In June 2022, Enanta Pharmaceuticals, Inc. filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts against Pfizer alleging that the active ingredient in Paxlovid, nirmatrelvir, infringes U.S. Patent No. 11,358,953, which was issued in June 2022, and seeking unspecified monetary damages. Matters Involving Pfizer and its Collaboration/Licensing Partners Eliquis In 2017, twenty-five generic companies sent BMS Paragraph-IV certification letters informing BMS that they had filed ANDAs seeking approval of generic versions of Eliquis, challenging the validity and infringement of one or more of the three patents listed in the Orange Book for Eliquis. One of the patents expired in December 2019 and the remaining patents currently are set to expire in 2026 and 2031. Eliquis has been jointly developed and is being commercialized by BMS and Pfizer. BMS and Pfizer filed patent-infringement actions against all generic filers in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware and the U.S. District Court for the District of West Virginia, asserting that each of the generic companies’ proposed products would infringe each of the patent(s) that each generic filer challenged. Some generic filers challenged only the 2031 patent, some challenged both the 2031 and 2026 patent, and one generic company challenged all three patents. In August 2020, the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware ruled that both the 2026 patent and the 2031 patent are valid and infringed by the proposed generic products. In August and September 2020, the generic filers appealed the District Court’s decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Prior to the August 2020 ruling, we and BMS settled with certain of the companies on terms not material to us, and we and BMS may settle with other generic companies in the future. In September 2021, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the District Court’s decision. Comirnaty In July 2022, Pfizer, BioNTech and BioNTech Manufacturing GmbH filed a declaratory judgment complaint against CureVac in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts seeking a judgment of non-infringement for the following three patents relating to Comirnaty: U.S. Patent Nos. 11,135,312, 11,149,278, and 11,241,493. Outside of the U.S., in the U.K., Pfizer and BioNTech have sued CureVac seeking a judgment of invalidity of several patents and CureVac has made certain infringement counterclaims. A2. Legal Proceedings––Product Litigation 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 (American Optical), 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. Warner-Lambert was acquired by Pfizer in 2000 and is 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 against American Optical, Pfizer and certain of its previously owned subsidiaries are pending in various federal and state courts seeking damages for alleged personal injury from exposure to products allegedly containing asbestos and other allegedly hazardous materials sold by Pfizer and certain of its previously owned subsidiaries. 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. Effexor Beginning in 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 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 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 appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. In 2017, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reversed the District Court’s decisions and remanded the claims to the District Court. Lipitor Beginning in 2011, purported class actions relating to Lipitor were filed in various federal courts against, among others, Pfizer, certain Pfizer affiliates, and, in most of the actions, Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. (Ranbaxy) and certain Ranbaxy affiliates. 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 the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. In September 2013 and 2014, the District Court dismissed with prejudice the claims of the direct purchasers. In October and November 2014, the District Court dismissed with prejudice the claims of all other Multi-District Litigation plaintiffs. All plaintiffs appealed the District Court’s orders dismissing their claims with prejudice to the U.S. 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 Court of Appeals. In 2017, the Court of Appeals reversed the District Court’s decisions and remanded the claims to the District Court. Also, in 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. EpiPen (Direct Purchaser) In February 2020, a lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas against Pfizer, its current and former affiliates King and Meridian, and various Mylan entities, on behalf of a purported U.S. nationwide class of direct purchaser plaintiffs who purchased EpiPen devices directly from the defendants. Plaintiffs in this action generally allege that Pfizer and Mylan conspired to delay market entry of generic EpiPen through the settlement of patent litigation regarding EpiPen, and thereby delayed market entry of generic EpiPen in violation of federal antitrust law. Plaintiffs seek treble damages for alleged overcharges for EpiPen since 2011. In July 2021, the District Court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the direct purchaser complaint, without prejudice. In September 2021, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. In August 2022, the District Court granted Pfizer’s motion to dismiss the complaint. Nexium 24HR and Protonix A number of individual and multi-plaintiff lawsuits have been filed against Pfizer, certain of its subsidiaries and/or other pharmaceutical manufacturers in various federal and state courts alleging that the plaintiffs developed kidney-related injuries purportedly as a result of the ingestion of certain proton pump inhibitors. The cases against Pfizer involve Protonix and/or Nexium 24HR and seek compensatory and punitive damages and, in some cases, treble damages, restitution or disgorgement. In 2017, the federal actions were ordered transferred for coordinated pre-trial proceedings to a Multi-District Litigation in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. As part of our Consumer Healthcare JV transaction with GSK, the JV has agreed to assume, and to indemnify Pfizer for, liabilities arising out of such litigation to the extent related to Nexium 24HR. Docetaxel • Personal Injury Actions A number of lawsuits have been filed against Hospira and Pfizer in various federal and state courts alleging that plaintiffs who were treated with Docetaxel developed permanent hair loss. The significant majority of the cases also name other defendants, including the manufacturer of the branded product, Taxotere. Plaintiffs seek compensatory and punitive damages. Additional lawsuits have been filed in which plaintiffs allege they developed blocked tear ducts following their treatment with Docetaxel. In 2016, the federal cases were transferred for coordinated pre-trial proceedings to a Multi-District Litigation in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. In 2022, the eye injury cases were transferred for coordinated pre-trial proceedings to a Multi-District Litigation in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. • Mississippi Attorney General Government Action In 2018, the Attorney General of Mississippi filed a complaint in Mississippi state court against the manufacturer of the branded product and eight other manufacturers including Pfizer and Hospira, alleging, with respect to Pfizer and Hospira, a failure to warn about a risk of permanent hair loss in violation of the Mississippi Consumer Protection Act. The action seeks civil penalties and injunctive relief. Zantac A number of lawsuits have been filed against Pfizer in various federal and state courts alleging that plaintiffs developed various types of cancer, or face an increased risk of developing cancer, purportedly as a result of the ingestion of Zantac. The significant majority of these cases also name other defendants that have historically manufactured and/or sold Zantac. Pfizer has not sold Zantac since 2006, and only sold an OTC version of the product. In 2006, Pfizer sold the consumer business that included its Zantac OTC rights to Johnson & Johnson and transferred the assets and liabilities related to Zantac OTC to Johnson & Johnson in connection with the sale. Plaintiffs in these cases seek compensatory and punitive damages. In February 2020, the federal actions were transferred for coordinated pre-trial proceedings to a Multi-District Litigation in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. Plaintiffs in the Multi-District Litigation have filed against Pfizer and many other defendants a master personal injury complaint, asserting a consolidated consumer class action alleging, among other things, claims under consumer protection statutes of all 50 states, and a medical monitoring complaint seeking to certify medical monitoring classes under the laws of 13 states. In addition, (i) Pfizer has received service of Canadian class action complaints naming Pfizer and other defendants, and seeking compensatory and punitive damages for personal injury and economic loss, allegedly arising from the defendants’ sale of Zantac in Canada; and (ii) the State of New Mexico and the Mayor and City Council of Baltimore separately filed civil actions against Pfizer and many other defendants in state courts, alleging various state statutory and common law claims in connection with the defendants’ alleged sale of Zantac in those jurisdictions. In April 2021, a Judicial Council Coordinated Proceeding was created in the Superior Court of California in Alameda County to coordinate personal injury actions against Pfizer and other defendants filed in California state court. Coordinated proceedings have also been created in other state courts. Chantix Beginning in August 2021, a number of putative class actions have been filed against Pfizer in various U.S. federal courts following Pfizer’s voluntary recall of Chantix due to the presence of a nitrosamine, N-nitroso-varenicline. Plaintiffs assert that they suffered economic harm purportedly as a result of purchasing Chantix or generic varenicline medicines sold by Pfizer. Plaintiffs seek to represent nationwide and state-specific classes and seek various remedies, including damages and medical monitoring. Similar putative class actions have been filed in Canada and Israel, where the product brand is Champix. A3. Legal Proceedings––Commercial and Other Matters 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. Pharmacia then transferred its agricultural operations to a newly created subsidiary, named Monsanto Company (New Monsanto), which it spun off in a two-stage process that was completed in 2002. Pharmacia was acquired by Pfizer in 2003 and is a wholly owned subsidiary of Pfizer. In connection with its spin-off that was completed in 2002, New Monsanto assumed, and agreed to indemnify Pharmacia for, any liabilities related to Pharmacia’s former agricultural business. New Monsanto has defended and/or is defending Pharmacia in connection with various claims and litigation arising out of, or related to, the agricultural business, and has been indemnifying Pharmacia when liability has been imposed or settlement has been reached regarding such claims and litigation. In connection with its spin-off in 1997, Solutia assumed, and agreed to indemnify Pharmacia for, liabilities related to Former Monsanto’s chemical businesses. As the result of its reorganization under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code, Solutia’s indemnification obligations relating to Former Monsanto’s chemical businesses are primarily limited to sites that Solutia has owned or operated. In addition, in connection with its spin-off that was completed in 2002, New Monsanto assumed, and agreed to indemnify Pharmacia for, any liabilities primarily relate |
