| 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 reasonably 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”) filed claims against Teva in the U.S. 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®) in September 2007. A jury trial was held and the jury returned a verdict in GSK’s favor finding Teva liable for induced infringement, including willful infringement, and assessing damages of $ million, not including pre- or post-judgment interest or a multiplier for willfulness. Thereafter, the court overturned the jury verdict, finding no induced infringement by Teva and that Teva did not owe any damages. On August 5, 2021, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a two-to-one decision reinstating the $ million verdict and finding Teva liable for patent infringement. On February 11, 2022, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit denied rehearing. Teva appealed this decision to the U.S. Supreme Court on July 11, 2022. In response to Teva’s certiorari 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 certain or 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 to Teva by multiple API manufacturers, including by Zhejiang Huahai Pharmaceuticals Co. Ltd. (“Huahai”). Since July 2018, Teva has been actively engaged with global regulatory authorities in reviewing its sartan and other products to determine whether NDMA and/or other related nitrosamine impurities are present in specific products. Where necessary, Teva has initiated additional voluntary recalls. In December 2019, Teva reached a settlement with Huahai resolving Teva’s claims related to certain sartan API supplied by Huahai. Under the settlement agreement, Huahai agreed to compensate Teva for some of its direct losses and provide it with prospective cost reductions for API. The settlement does not release Huahai from liability for any losses Teva may incur as a result of third party personal injury or product liability claims relating to the sartan API at issue, as discussed below. In addition, multiple lawsuits have been filed in connection with this matter. 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. The judge in the valsartan MDL ordered that the first trial, likely commencing in late 2023 or early 2024, will involve third-party payor economic loss claims via a class representative on behalf of several subclasses of payors against Teva and two other defendants. On February 8, 2023, the district court in the valsartan MDL entered an order that certified a series of subclasses on plaintiffs’ economic loss claims and granted in part and denied in part the certification of a medical monitoring class. Defendants sought permission for appellate review of that decision, which was denied. In the ranitidine MDL, the generic manufacturers’ motions to dismiss have been granted, although certain plaintiffs have appeals pending. In addition, on December 6, 2022, the court in the ranitidine MDL granted the brand defendants’ motions to exclude all of plaintiffs’ general causation experts and granted summary judgment to the brand defendants on that ground. 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. State court valsartan and losartan actions are pending in New Jersey and Delaware and are currently stayed. State court ranitidine cases naming Teva are pending in coordinated proceedings in California, Illinois, Pennsylvania and New York, with motions to dismiss pending in Illinois, Pennsylvania and New York on preemption and other grounds. In addition to the valsartan and ranitidine MDLs and coordinated state court proceedings, 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. Defendants’ motion to dismiss that complaint was granted in part and denied in part. 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 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 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. The hearing for the appeal took place in December 2022 and a decision is pending. In December 2011, three groups of plaintiffs filed claims against 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 filed claims against 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® (extended release niacin) filed claims against Teva and Abbott for violating the antitrust laws by entering into a settlement agreement in April 2005 to resolve patent litigation over the product. A multidistrict litigation has been established in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Throughout 2015 and in January 2016, several individual direct-purchaser opt-out plaintiffs filed complaints with allegations nearly identical to those of the direct purchasers’ class. The court denied the indirect purchasers’ motion for class certification with prejudice, and on April 24, 2023, the denial was affirmed by the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. In October 2016, the District Attorney for Orange County, California, filed a similar complaint in California state court, alleging violations of state law and seeking restitution and civil penalties. Annual sales of Niaspan® were approximately ® 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 plaintiffs have filed antitrust lawsuits (which have since been coordinated in federal court in Delaware) against Amgen and Teva alleging that the January 2, 2019 settlement agreement between Amgen and Teva, resolving patent litigation over cinacalcet (generic Sensipar®), violated the antitrust laws. In March 2023, Teva moved for re-argument of its motion to certify the district court’s rulings denying Teva’s motion to dismiss in part for review by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, and is awaiting the court’s decision. Annual sales of Sensipar® in the United States were approximately $ billion at the time Teva launched its generic version of Sensipar® in December 2018, and at the time of the January 2, 2019 settlement. 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 ® 1 ® 1 ® 1 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/or 2014 to resolve patent litigation relating to Teva’s generic versions of Viread ® ® ® . Plaintiffs allege that the settlement agreements contain improper reverse payments that delayed the availability of generic products, in violation of the federal antitrust laws and state law. 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. Plaintiffs in the Northern District of California cases have abandoned any claim for damages relating to the Viread ® In October 2022, the New Mexico Supreme Court granted Teva’s petition for a writ of certiorari ® ® ® ® ® ® $ million, $ billion and $ million, respectively. 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., as well as the CMA’s subsequent investigation relating to an anti-competitive agreement with Waymade. On January 9, 2017, Teva completed the sale of Actavis UK to Accord Healthcare Limited, in connection with which Teva will indemnify Accord Healthcare for potential fines imposed by the CMA and/or damages awarded by a court against Actavis UK in relation to two of the three statements of objection from the CMA (dated December 16, 2016 and March 3, 2017), and resulting from conduct prior to the closing date of the sale. In addition, Teva agreed to indemnify Allergan against losses arising from this matter in the event of any such fines or damages. On October 6, 2021, Accord UK and Auden Mckenzie appealed the CMA’s decision. A provision for the estimated exposure for Teva related to the fines and/or damages has been recorded in the financial statements. The hearing for the appeal concluded in the first quarter of 2023, and a decision remains pending. 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 ® ® In November 2022, two complaints, one brought by Walgreen Co. and Kroger Specialty Pharmacy, Inc. and another by Fraternal Order of Police, Miami Lodge 20, Insurance Trust Fund and Jacksonville Police Officers and Fire Fighters Health Insurance Trust (collectively the “Walgreen and EPP complaints”), were filed in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey against Teva and its marketing partner, Natco Pharma Limited (“Natco”), alleging violations of the antitrust laws in connection with their December 2015 settlement of patent litigation with Celgene Corporation (which was subsequently acquired by Bristol-Myers Squibb Company (“BMS”)) involving the drug Revlimid ® pre-trial Opt-Out In Re Revlimid & Thalomid Purchaser Antitrust Litigation 2:19-cv-7532-ES-MAH. ® On December 2, 2022, plaintiffs purporting to represent putative classes of indirect purchasers of EpiPen® (epinephrine injection) and Nuvigil® (armodafinil) filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas against Teva, Cephalon, and a former Teva executive. Teva owns the New Drug Application (“NDA”) for Nuvigil® and sold the brand product, for which generic entry occurred in 2016. Teva filed an ANDA to sell generic EpiPen®, which Teva launched in 2018, following receipt of FDA approval. The complaint alleges, among other things, that the defendants violated the federal antitrust laws, the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO Act”), and various state laws in connection with settlements resolving patent litigation relating to those products. Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief, compensatory and punitive damages, interest, attorneys’ fees and costs. On March 8, 2023, Teva filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, which is pending. Annual sales of Nuvigil® in the United States were approximately $ ® 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, co-defendant 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, which the Court later amended on October 13, 2022. This amended schedule does not include trial dates, but provides for the parties to complete briefing on motions for summary judgment in the third quarter of 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. On February 27, 2023, the Court largely denied defendants’ motions to dismiss the federal claims asserted by the attorneys general in their bellwether complaint. Another motion to dismiss, directed at that same complaint, and related to the state law claims asserted by the attorneys general, remains pending. Teva has settled with the states of Mississippi (in June 2021), Louisiana (in March 2022), Georgia (in September 2022), Arkansas (in October 2022) and Florida (in February 2023). 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 territories of American Samoa and Guam have also voluntarily dismissed all of their claims in the litigation, including their claims against Actavis and Teva USA; American Samoa’s dismissal was without prejudice in July 2020, and Guam’s dismissal was with prejudice in February 2023. The most recent settlement with Florida follows 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 (the “DOJ PAP Complaint”). 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 DOJ PAP Complaint. Trial for this matter is currently scheduled for September 2023. On April 24, 2023, both parties filed summary judgment motions, which are currently pending. In the first quarter of 2023, Teva recognized a provision based on its offer to settle this matter. 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 DOJ PAP Complaint. On April 2, 2021, Teva filed a motion to dismiss Humana’s claims on the grounds that the claims are |
