| Commitments and contingencies | NOTE 10 – Commitments and contingencies: General From time to time, Teva and/or its subsidiaries are subject to claims for damages and/or equitable relief arising in the ordinary course of business. In addition, as described below, in large part as a result of the nature of its business, Teva is frequently subject to litigation. Teva generally believes that it has meritorious defenses to the actions brought against it and vigorously pursues the defense or settlement of each such action. Teva records a provision in its financial statements to the extent that it concludes that a contingent liability is probable and the amount thereof is estimable. Based upon the status of the cases described below, management’s assessments of the likelihood of damages, and the advice of counsel, no provisions have been made regarding the matters disclosed in this note, except as noted below. Litigation outcomes and contingencies are unpredictable, and excessive verdicts can occur. Accordingly, management’s assessments involve complex judgments about future events and often rely heavily on estimates and assumptions. Teva continuously reviews the matters described below and may, from time to time, remove previously disclosed matters where the exposures were fully resolved in the prior year, or determined to no longer meet the materiality threshold for disclosure, or were substantially resolved. If one or more of such proceedings described below were to result in final judgments against Teva, such judgments could be material to its results of operations and cash flows in a given period. In addition, Teva incurs significant legal fees and related expenses in the course of defending its positions even if the facts and circumstances of a particular litigation do not give rise to a provision in the financial statements. In connection with third-party agreements, Teva may under certain circumstances be required to indemnify, and may be indemnified by, in unspecified amounts, the parties to such agreements against third-party claims. Among other things, Teva’s agreements with third parties may require Teva to indemnify them, or require them to indemnify Teva, for the costs and damages incurred in connection with product liability claims, in specified or unspecified amounts. Except as otherwise noted, all of the litigation matters disclosed below involve claims arising in the United States. Except as otherwise noted, all third party sales figures given below are based on IQVIA data. Intellectual Property Litigation From time to time, Teva seeks to develop generic and biosimilar versions of patent-protected pharmaceuticals and biopharmaceuticals for sale prior to patent expiration in various markets. In the United States, to obtain approval for most generics prior to the expiration of the originator’s patents, Teva must challenge the patents under the procedures set forth in the Hatch-Waxman Act of 1984, as amended. For many biosimilar products that are covered by patents, Teva participates in the “patent dance” procedures of the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act (BPCIA), which allow for the challenge to originator patents prior to obtaining biosimilar product approval. To the extent that Teva seeks to utilize such patent challenge procedures, Teva is and expects to be involved in patent litigation regarding the validity, enforceability or infringement of the originator’s patents. Teva may also be involved in patent litigation involving the extent to which its product or manufacturing process techniques may infringe other originator or third-party patents. Additionally, depending upon a complex analysis of a variety of legal and commercial factors, Teva may, in certain circumstances, elect to market a generic or biosimilar version of the product even though litigation is still pending. To the extent Teva elects to proceed in this manner, it could face substantial liability for patent infringement if the final court decision is adverse to Teva, which could be material to its results of operations and cash flows in a given period. Teva could also be sued for patent infringement outside of the context of the Hatch-Waxman Act or BPCIA. For example, Teva could be sued for patent infringement after commencing sales of a product. This type of litigation can involve any of Teva’s pharmaceutical products, not just its generic and biosimilar products. The general rule for damages in patent infringement cases in the United States is that the patentee should be compensated by no less than a reasonable royalty and it may also be able, in certain circumstances, to be compensated for its lost profits. The amount of a reasonable royalty award would generally be calculated based on the sales of Teva’s product. The amount of lost profits would generally be based on the lost sales of the patentee’s product. In addition, the patentee may seek consequential damages as well as enhanced damages of up to three times the profits lost by the patent holder for willful infringement, although courts have typically awarded much lower multiples. Teva is also involved in litigation regarding patents in other countries where it does business, particularly in Europe. The laws concerning generic pharmaceuticals and patents differ from country to country. Damages for patent infringement in Europe may include lost profits or a reasonable royalty, but enhanced damages for willful infringement are generally not available. In July 2014, GlaxoSmithKline (“GSK”) sued Teva in the District Court for the District of Delaware for infringement of a patent directed to using carvedilol in a specified manner to decrease the risk of mortality in patients with congestive heart failure. Teva and eight other generic producers began selling their carvedilol tablets (the generic version of GSK’s Coreg ® pre- two-to-one certiorari In October 2016, Adapt and Emergent Biosciences Inc. (“EBSI”) sued Teva in the District Court for the District of New Jersey, asserting infringement of its patents expiring in 2035, as a result of Teva’s filing of its Abbreviated New Drug Application (“ANDA”) seeking to market a generic version of Narcan ® ® Product Liability Litigation Teva’s business inherently exposes it to potential product liability claims. Teva maintains a program of insurance, which may include commercial insurance, self-insurance (including direct risk retention), or a combination of both types of insurance, in amounts and on terms that it believes are reasonable and prudent in light of its business and related risks. However, Teva sells, and will continue to sell, pharmaceuticals that are not covered by its product liability insurance; in addition, it may be subject to claims for which insurance coverage is denied as well as claims that exceed its policy limits. Product liability coverage for pharmaceutical companies is becoming more expensive and increasingly difficult to obtain. As a result, Teva may not be able to obtain the type and amount of insurance it desires, or any insurance on reasonable terms, in all of its markets. Teva and its subsidiaries are parties to litigation relating to previously unknown nitrosamine impurities discovered in certain products. The discovery led to a global recall of single and combination valsartan medicines around the world starting in July 2018 and to subsequent recalls on other products. The nitrosamine impurities in valsartan are allegedly found in the active pharmaceutical ingredient (“API”) supplied by multiple API manufacturers. Teva’s products allegedly at issue in the various nitrosamine-related litigations pending in the United States include valsartan, losartan, metformin and ranitidine. There are currently two Multi-District Litigations (“MDL”) pending in the United States District Courts against Teva and numerous other manufacturers. One MDL is pending in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey for valsartan, losartan and irbesartan. Teva is not named in complaints with respect to irbesartan. The second MDL is pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida for ranitidine. The lawsuits against Teva in the MDLs consist of individual personal injury and/or product liability claims and economic damages claims brought by consumers and end payors on behalf of purported classes of other consumers and end payors as well as medical monitoring class claims. Defendants’ motions to dismiss in the valsartan, losartan and irbesartan MDL were denied in part and granted in part and plaintiffs have filed amended complaints. The judge in the valsartan MDL has indicated that the first trial, likely commencing in 2023, will consider third-party payor economic loss claims against Teva and two other defendants. In the ranitidine MDL, the generics manufacturers’ motions to dismiss have been granted, although certain plaintiffs have appeals pending. Teva, as well as other generic manufacturers, is also named in several state court actions asserting allegations similar to those in the ranitidine MDL and the valsartan and losartan MDL. The state court valsartan and losartan actions are pending in New Jersey and Delaware and are currently stayed. The state court ranitidine cases naming Teva are pending in California, Illinois, Pennsylvania and New York, with coordinated proceedings in California, Illinois and Pennsylvania. In addition to these MDLs, Teva has also been named in a consolidated proceeding pending in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey brought by individuals and end payors seeking economic damages on behalf of purported classes of consumers and end payors who purchased Teva’s, as well as other generic manufacturers’ metformin products. Defendants’ motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ amended metformin complaint from June 2021, was granted without prejudice with respect to the consumer economic loss plaintiffs and granted in part and denied in part with respect to the end payor plaintiffs. Plaintiffs were granted leave to file a second amended complaint, which defendants have moved to dismiss. Those motions are currently pending. Similar lawsuits are pending in Canada and Germany. Competition Matters As part of its generic pharmaceuticals business, Teva has challenged a number of patents covering branded pharmaceuticals, some of which are among the most widely-prescribed and well-known drugs on the market. Many of Teva’s patent challenges have resulted in litigation relating to Teva’s attempts to market generic versions of such pharmaceuticals under the federal Hatch-Waxman Act. Some of this litigation has been resolved through settlement agreements in which Teva obtained a license to market a generic version of the drug, often years before the patents expire. Teva and its subsidiaries have been named as defendants in cases that allege antitrust violations arising from such settlement agreements. The plaintiffs in these cases are usually direct and indirect purchasers of pharmaceutical products, some of whom assert claims on behalf of classes of all direct and indirect purchasers, and they typically allege that (i) Teva received something of value from the innovator in exchange for an agreement to delay generic entry, and (ii) significant savings could have been realized if there had been no settlement agreement and generic competition had commenced earlier. These plaintiffs seek various forms of injunctive and monetary relief, including damages based on the difference between the brand price and what the generic price allegedly would have been and disgorgement of profits, which are often automatically tripled under the relevant statutes, plus attorneys’ fees and costs. The alleged damages generally depend on the size of the branded market and the length of the alleged delay, and can be substantial—potentially measured in multiples of the annual brand sales—particularly where the alleged delays are lengthy or branded drugs with annual sales in the billions of dollars are involved. Teva believes that its settlement agreements are lawful and serve to increase competition, and has defended them vigorously. In Teva’s experience to date, these cases have typically settled for a fraction of the high end of the damages sought, although there can be no assurance that such outcomes will continue. In June 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court held, in Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) v. Actavis, Inc., that a rule of reason test should be applied in analyzing whether such settlements potentially violate the federal antitrust laws. The Supreme Court held that a trial court must analyze each agreement in its entirety in order to determine whether it violates the antitrust laws. This new test has resulted in increased scrutiny of Teva’s patent settlements, additional action by the FTC and state and local authorities, and an increased risk of liability in Teva’s currently pending antitrust litigations. In May 2015, Cephalon Inc., a Teva subsidiary (“Cephalon”), entered into a consent decree with the FTC (the “Modafinil Consent Decree”) under which the FTC dismissed antitrust claims against Cephalon related to certain finished modafinil products (marketed as PROVIGIL ® In November 2020, the European Commission issued a final decision in its proceedings against both Cephalon and Teva, finding that the 2005 settlement agreement between the parties had the object and effect of hindering the entry of generic modafinil, and imposed fines totaling euro 60.5 million on Teva and Cephalon. Teva and Cephalon filed an appeal against the decision in February 2021. A provision for this matter was included in the financial statements. Teva has provided the European Commission with a bank guarantee in the amount of the imposed fines. In December 2011, three groups of plaintiffs sued Wyeth and Teva for alleged violations of the antitrust laws in connection with their November 2005 settlement of patent litigation involving extended release venlafaxine (generic Effexor XR ® ® ® In February 2012, two purported classes of direct-purchaser plaintiffs sued GSK and Teva in New Jersey federal court for alleged violations of the antitrust laws in connection with their settlement of patent litigation involving lamotrigine (generic Lamictal ® ® ® In April 2013, purported classes of direct purchasers of, and end payers for, Niaspan ® opt-out ® ® Since January 2014, numerous lawsuits have been filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York by purported classes of end-payers ® end-payers’ ® ® ® Putative classes of direct-purchaser and end-payer ® ® ® In August 2019, certain direct-purchaser plaintiffs filed claims in federal court in Philadelphia naming Teva and its affiliates as defendants alleging that certain patent litigation settlement agreements relating to AndroGel ® ® ® Between September 1, 2020 and December 20, 2020, separate plaintiffs purporting to represent putative classes of direct and indirect purchasers and opt-out ® ® ® In February 2021, the State of New Mexico filed a lawsuit against Teva and certain other defendants related to various medicines used to treat HIV. Between September and December 2021, several private plaintiffs including retailers and health insurance providers filed similar claims in federal court in the Northern District of California and in the District of Minnesota. As they relate to Teva, the lawsuits challenge settlement agreements Teva entered into with Gilead in 2013 and 2014 to resolve patent litigation relating to Teva’s generic versions of Viread ® ® ® allege that the settlements contain improper reverse payments that delayed the availability of Teva’s generic products, in violation of the federal antitrust laws and state law. Several recently filed cases are in the process of being coordinated with the existing litigation in the Northern District of California. On February 16, 2022, Teva moved to dismiss the claims by certain private plaintiffs but that motion was denied. However, Teva has successfully moved to limit the potential damages period as to certain private plaintiffs. Discovery in those cases is now closed. Plaintiffs in these cases have abandoned any claim for damages relating to the Viread ® ® ® ® ® ® ® In March 2021, following the 2019 European Commission’s inspection of Teva and subsequent request for information, the European Commission opened a formal antitrust investigation to assess whether Teva may have abused a dominant position by delaying the market entry and uptake of medicines that compete with COPAXONE. On October 10, 2022, the European Commission issued a Statement of Objections, which sets forth its preliminary allegations that Teva had engaged in anti-competitive practices. Teva now has the opportunity to formally respond to the European Commission’s allegations. Annual sales of COPAXONE in the European Economic Area for 2021 were approximately $373 million. On July 15, 2021, the U.K. Competition and Markets Authority (“CMA”) issued a decision imposing fines for breaches of U.K. competition law by Allergan, Actavis UK and Auden Mckenzie and a number of other companies in connection with the supply of 10mg and 20mg hydrocortisone tablets in the U.K. The decision combines the CMA’s three prior investigations into the supply of hydrocortisone tablets in the U.K. and encompasses those allegations which were subject to prior statements of objections (a provisional finding of breach of the Competition Act), in particular those under case 50277-1 50277-2 In August 2021, a plaintiff filed a putative class action suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania against Takeda and several generic manufacturers, including Watson and Teva, alleging violations of the antitrust laws in connection with their settlement of patent litigation involving colchicine tablets (generic Colcrys ® motion-to-dismiss ® Government Investigations and Litigation Relating to Pricing and Marketing Teva is involved in government investigations and litigation arising from the marketing and promotion of its pharmaceutical products in the United States. In 2015 and 2016, Actavis and Teva USA each respectively received subpoenas from the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) Antitrust Division seeking documents and other information relating to the marketing and pricing of certain Teva USA generic products and communications with competitors about such products. On August 25, 2020, a federal grand jury in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania returned a three count indictment charging Teva USA with criminal felony Sherman Act violations. See No. 20-cr-200 E-Cream, In May 2018, Teva received a civil investigative demand from the DOJ Civil Division, pursuant to the federal False Claims Act, seeking documents and information produced since January 1, 2009 relevant to the Civil Division’s investigation concerning allegations that generic pharmaceutical manufacturers, including Teva, engaged in market allocation and price-fixing agreements, paid illegal remuneration, and caused false claims to be submitted in violation of the False Claims Act. An adverse resolution of this matter may include fines, penalties, financial forfeiture and compliance conditions. In 2015 and 2016, Actavis and Teva USA each respectively received a subpoena from the Connecticut Attorney General seeking documents and other information relating to potential state antitrust law violations. Subsequently, on December 15, 2016, a civil action was brought by the attorneys general of twenty states against Teva USA and several other companies asserting claims under federal antitrust law alleging price fixing of generic products in the United States. That complaint was later amended to add new states as named plaintiffs, as well as new allegations and new state law claims, and on June 18, 2018, the attorneys general of 49 states plus Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia filed a consolidated amended complaint against Actavis and Teva, as well as other companies and individuals. On May 10, 2019, most (though not all) of these attorneys general filed another antitrust complaint against Actavis, Teva and other companies and individuals, alleging price-fixing and market allocation with respect to additional generic products. On November 1, 2019, the state attorneys general filed an amended complaint, bringing the total number of plaintiff states and territories to 54. The amended complaint alleges that Teva was at the center of a conspiracy in the generic pharmaceutical industry, and asserts that Teva and others fixed prices, rigged bids, and allocated customers and market share with respect to certain additional products. On June 10, 2020, most, but not all, of the same states, with the addition of the U.S. Virgin Islands, filed a third complaint in the District of Connecticut naming, among other defendants, Actavis, but not Teva USA, in a similar complaint relating to dermatological generics products. On September 9, 2021, the states’ attorneys general amended their third complaint to, among other things, add California as a plaintiff. In the various complaints described above, the states seek a finding that the defendants’ actions violated federal antitrust law and state antitrust and consumer protection laws, as well as injunctive relief, disgorgement, damages on behalf of various state and governmental entities and consumers, civil penalties and costs. All such complaints have been transferred to the generic drug multidistrict litigation in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (“Pennsylvania MDL”). On July 13, 2020, the court overseeing the Pennsylvania MDL chose the attorneys’ general November 1, 2019 amended complaint, referenced above, along with certain complaints filed by private plaintiffs, to proceed first in the litigation as bellwether complaints. On February 9, 2021, Teva’s motion to reconsider that ruling was granted, and on May 7, 2021, the Court chose the attorneys’ general third complaint filed on June 10, 2020 and subsequently amended to serve as a bellwether complaint in the Pennsylvania MDL, along with certain complaints filed by private plaintiffs. On December 9, 2021, the Court entered an order setting the schedule for the proceedings in the bellwether cases. The order did not include trial dates, but provides for the parties to complete briefing on motions for summary judgement in early 2024. On June 7, 2022, the Court dismissed the attorneys’ general claims for monetary relief under federal law, concluding that the federal statute under which the attorneys general brought suit authorizes injunctive relief only. However, the attorneys general have pending claims for monetary relief under state law. Teva has settled with the states of Mississippi (in June 2021), Louisiana (in March 2022), Georgia (in September 2022) and Arkansas (in October 2022). Teva paid each state an amount proportional to its share of the national population (approximately $1,000,000 for each 1% share of the national population), and the states have dismissed their claims against Actavis and Teva USA, as well as certain former employees of Actavis and Teva USA, pursuant to these settlements. On March 30, 2022, the State of Alabama voluntarily dismissed all of its claims in the litigation, including its claims against Actavis and Teva USA, without prejudice. The most recent settlements with Georgia and Arkansas follow the pattern reached in earlier settlements. Specifically, as mentioned above, Teva agreed to pay each state an amount proportional to its share of the national population. This, in addition to the status of ongoing negotiations with several other U.S. state attorneys general to settle on comparable terms, caused management to consider settlement of the claims filed by the remaining attorneys general to be probable, and management recorded an estimated provision in the third quarter of 2022, in accordance with Accounting Standards Codification 450 “Accounting for Contingencies.” Beginning on March 2, 2016, and continuing through December 2020, numerous complaints have been filed in the United States on behalf of putative classes of direct and indirect purchasers of several generic drug products, as well as several individual direct and indirect purchaser opt-out In March 2017, Teva received a subpoena from the U.S. Attorney’s office in Boston, Massachusetts requesting documents related to Teva’s donations to patient assistance programs. Subsequently, in August 2020, the U.S. Attorney’s office in Boston, Massachusetts brought a civil action in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts alleging violations of the federal Anti-Kickback Statute, and asserting causes of action under the federal False Claims Act and state law. It is alleged that Teva caused the submission of false claims to Medicare through Teva’s donations to bona fide independent charities that provide financial assistance to patients. An adverse judgment may involve damages, civil penalties and injunctive remedies. On September 10, 2021, the Court granted Teva’s motion to dismiss the unjust enrichment claim and denied the remainder of the motion. On October 15, 2021, Teva filed an answer to the complaint. Trial for this matter is currently scheduled for September 2023. Additionally, on January 8, 2021, Humana, Inc. filed an action against Teva in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida based on the allegations raised in the August 2020 complaint filed by the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Boston. On April 2, 2021, Teva filed a motion to dismiss the claims on the grounds that the claims are time-barred and/or insufficiently pled, and that motion remains pending and discovery is ongoing. In April 2021, a city and county in Washington sued Teva in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington for alleged violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, Washington’s Consumer Protection Act, and unjust enrichment concerning Teva’s sale of COPAXONE. Plaintiffs purport to represent a nationwide class of health plans and a subclass of Washington-based health plans that purchased and/or reimbursed health plan members for COPAXONE. Plaintiffs allege that Teva engaged in several fraudulent schemes that resulted in plaintiffs and the putative class members purchasing and/or reimbursing plan members for additional prescriptions of COPAXONE and/or at inflated COPAXONE prices. Plaintiffs seek treble damages for the excess reimbursements and inflated costs, as well as injunctive relief. On September 28, 2021, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. On November 17, 2021, Teva moved to dismiss the suit, on the grounds that plaintiffs’ claims are barred by the applicable statutes of limitations and the direct purchaser rule, suffer from jurisdictional defects, and fail to plausibly allege fraud or other elements of their claims. That motion is fully briefed and a decision remains pending. On June 29, 2021, Mylan Pharmaceuticals (“Mylan”) sued Teva in the District Court for the District of New Jersey. On March 11, 2022 and March 15, 2022, FWK Holdings, LLC, KPH Healthcare Servs., Inc. d/b/a Kinney Drugs, Inc., Meijer Inc., Meijer Distribution, Inc., Labor-Management Healthcare Fund, the Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, and the New York State Teamsters Council Health and Hospital Fund sued Teva in the District Court for the District of New Jersey on behalf of themselves and other similarly situated direct and indirect purchasers of COPAXONE. On August 22, 2022, Blue Cross Blue Shield of Vermont and the Vermont Health Plan sued Teva in the District Court for the District of Vermont on behalf of themselves and other similarly situated indirect purchasers of COPAXONE. The complaints assert claims for alleged violations of the Lanham Act, state and federal unfair competition and monopolization laws, tortious interference, trade libel, and a violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. Plaintiffs claim Teva was involved in an unlawful scheme to delay and hinder generic competition concerning COPAXONE sales. Plaintiffs seek damages for lost profits and expenses, disgorgement, restitution, treble damages, attorneys’ fees and costs, and injunctive relief. Teva has moved to dismiss the complaints filed by Mylan and the class plaintiffs in the District of New Jersey on the grounds, among others, that none of its challenged conduct violates the law. Those motions are fully briefed and a decision remains pending. Teva has moved to transfer the remaining complaint in Vermont to the District of New Jersey and expects to move to dismiss that complaint on similar grounds. Opioids Litigation Since May 2014, more than 3,500 complaints have been filed with respect to opioid sales and distribution against various Teva affiliates, along with several other pharmaceutical companies, by a number of cities, counties, states, other governmental agencies, tribes and private plaintiffs (including various putative class actions of individuals) in both state and federal courts. Most of the federal cases have been consolidated into a multidistrict litigation in the Northern District of Ohio (“MDL Opioid Proceeding”) and many of the cases filed in state court have been removed to federal court and consolidated into the MDL Opioid Proceeding. Two cases that were included in the MDL Opioid Proceeding were transferred back to federal district court for additional discovery, pre-trial No. 14-cv-04361 No. 18-cv-07591-CRB ® ® non-personal non-economic On April 19, 2021, a bench trial in California (The People of the State of California, acting by and through Santa Clara County Counsel James R. Williams, et. al. v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et. al.) commenced against Teva and other defendants focused on the marketing of branded opioids. On December 14, 2021, the court issued its final judgment in favor of the defendants on all claims. Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal of this judgment in February 2022. On June 29, 2021, a jury trial in New York ( In re Opioid Litigation 400000 In May 2019, Teva settled the Oklahoma litigation brought by the Oklahoma Attorney General (State of Oklahoma, ex. rel. Mike Hunter, Attorney General of Oklahoma vs. Purdue Pharma L.P., et. al.) for $85 million. The settlement did not include any admission of violation of law for any of the claims or allegations made. As the Company demonstrated a willingness to settle part of the litigation, for accounting purposes, management considered a portion of opioid-related cases as probable and, as such, recorded an estimated provision in the second quarter of 2019. Given the relatively early stage of the cases, management viewed no amount within the range to be the most likely outcome. Therefore, management recorded a provision for the reasonably estimable minimum amount in the assessed range for such opioid-related cases in accordance with Accounting Standards Codification 450 “Accounting for Contingencies.” Additionally, on October 21, 2019, Teva reached a settlement with the two plaintiffs in the MDL Opioid Proceeding that was scheduled for trial for the Track One case, Cuyahoga and Summit Counties of Ohio. Under the terms of the settlement, Teva agreed to provide the two counties with opioid treatment medication, buprenorphine naloxone (sublingual tablets), known by the brand name Suboxone ® On July 21, 2021, it was announced that four other defendants (not including Teva) reached nationwide settlements, subject to certain conditions, which include payment of up to approximately $26 billion spread over up to 18 years. Teva has continued to work toward a nationwide settlement with the working group of States’ Attorneys General (the “Working Group”), the Multi-District Litigation Plaintiffs’ Executive Committee (“PEC”) and counsel for Native American tribes (“Tribes”). In July 2022, the parties reached an agreement in principle on the financial terms of a final nationwide settlement similar in structure to the nationwide settlements of other defendants. During the third quarter of 2022, Teva, the Working Group and PEC made substantial progress toward finalizing the non-financial terms of the proposed nationwide settlement agreement, and Teva and Allergan resolved their dispute with respect to Teva’s indemnification obligations. Under the financial terms of the proposed nationwide settlement agreement, Teva will pay up to ® lieu of product. The nationwide settlement agreement is contingent upon (i) final documentation of the proposed nationwide settlement agreement; (ii) reaching sufficient participation b |
