The Company is subject to various legal proceedings and claims, including government investigations, environmental matters, product liability matters, patent infringement claims, antitrust matters, securities class action lawsuits, personal injury claims, employment disputes, contractual and other commercial disputes, and all other legal proceedings, all in the ordinary course of business, including those described below. Although it is not feasible to predict the outcomes of these matters, the Company believes, unless otherwise indicated below, given the information currently available, that their ultimate resolution will not have a material adverse effect on its financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.

SEC Subpoena. In August 2019, the Company received a subpoena from the SEC for documents related to the Company's disclosure of its dispute with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services ("HHS") and Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (together with HHS, the "Agency") concerning the base date average manufacturer price for Acthar® Gel under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program, which was also the subject of litigation that the Company filed against the Agency. The SEC issued subsequent subpoenas on January 7, 2022 and September 28, 2022, requesting additional documents from the Company.

In connection with the investigation, on January 13, 2023, the SEC staff issued Wells Notices to the Company and individuals, including certain of its current and former executive officers, who were employed during 2019 (collectively, the “Individuals”). The notices indicate that the SEC staff has made a preliminary determination to recommend that the SEC file an enforcement action against the Company that would allege violations of the federal securities laws, and against the Individuals that would allege violations of the federal securities laws and/or aiding and abetting violations of the federal securities laws. The recommendation as to the Company may involve an injunction, a cease-and-desist order and/or other appropriate relief.

The actions recommended by the SEC staff would allege, among other things, that (a) the Company improperly omitted to disclose the dispute with the Agency prior to the litigation filed by the Company in federal court on May 21, 2019, and (b) the Company’s disclosure of the civil investigative demand received from the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Massachusetts in January 2019 (“Boston CID”) should have stated that the Boston CID related to the Company’s dispute with the Agency.

A Wells Notice is neither a formal charge of wrongdoing nor a final determination that the recipient has violated any law. Under the SEC procedures, a recipient of a Wells Notice has an opportunity to respond and make a submission to the SEC staff setting forth the recipient’s interests and position in regard to the subject matter of the investigation.

The Company believes that it has complied with all applicable laws and regulations, and it has provided a submission explaining the Company’s position and its belief that no enforcement action is warranted or appropriate. The Company understands that the Individuals have provided similar submissions to the SEC staff. The outcome of this matter is uncertain, and as a result, the Company is unable to estimate the potential exposure associated with this matter.

Putative Class Action Securities Litigation (Continental General). On July 7, 2023, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against the Company, its Chief Executive Officer ("CEO") Sigurdur Olafsson, its Chief Financial Officer ("CFO") Bryan Reasons, and the Chairman of the Board, Paul Bisaro, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New Jersey, captioned Continental General Insurance Company and Percy Rockdale, LLC v. Mallinckrodt plc et al., No. 23-cv-03662. The complaint purports to be brought on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired Mallinckrodt's securities between June 17, 2022 and June 14, 2023. The lawsuit generally alleges that the defendants made false and misleading statements in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder related to the Company’s business, operations, and prospects, including its financial strength, its ability to timely make certain payments related to Mallinckrodt’s settlement of opioid-related litigation and the risk of additional filings for bankruptcy protection. The lawsuit seeks monetary damages in an unspecified amount. The Company intends to vigorously defend itself in this matter.

Local 542. In May 2018, the International Union of Operating Engineers ("IUOE") Local 542 filed a non-class complaint against the Company and other defendants in Pennsylvania state court alleging improper pricing and distribution of Acthar Gel, in violation of Pennsylvania's Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law, aiding and abetting, unjust enrichment and negligent misrepresentation captioned as Int'l Union of Operating Engineers Local 542 v. Mallinckrodt ARD Inc., et al. Plaintiff filed an amended complaint in August 2018, the Company's objections to which were denied by the court. In January 2021, the Company removed this case to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania ("EDPA"). In March 2021, the EDPA granted the Company's motion to transfer the case to the District of Delaware and denied without prejudice Local 542's motion to remand the case to state court. In June 2021, the District of Delaware referred this case to the Bankruptcy Court in Delaware. On November 17, 2022, Local 542 filed a motion to withdraw the reference to the District Court, and the case was transferred back to the District of Delaware

at Case No. 22-cv-01502. On December 22, 2022, Local 542 filed a request for the motion to withdraw the reference to be decided by the EDPA and to permit remand to state court. On December 28, 2022, the case was assigned to Judge Ambro of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit due to related cases. On June 27, 2023, the Delaware district court entered an order to withdraw reference of the action to the Delaware bankruptcy court and to transfer the case back to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania in order to be remanded to state court. The Company is discussing its dismissal from the case in light of the Bankruptcy Discharge. The Company will vigorously defend itself in this matter both on the merits and as discharged through the bankruptcy.

Mallinckrodt Pharmaceuticals Ireland Limited et al. v. Airgas Therapeutics LLC et al. On December 30, 2022, the Company initiated litigation against Airgas Therapeutics, LLC, Airgas USA LLC, and Air Liquide S.A. (Collectively "Airgas") in the District of Delaware following notice from Airgas of its abbreviated new drug application ("ANDA") submission seeking approval from the FDA for a generic version of INOmax® (nitric oxide) gas, for inhalation ("INOmax"). The case is at an early stage, with discovery just commencing. At the July 2023 scheduling conference, the court set an initial trial date of March 10, 2025. Airgas's ANDA received final approval from the FDA in July 2023, and according to Airgas' counsel, the original ANDA was filed in April 2011.

Many of the patents asserted against Airgas were previously asserted in the District of Delaware against Praxair Distribution, Inc. and Praxair, Inc. (collectively "Praxair") in 2015 and 2016 following Praxair's submissions with FDA seeking approval for a nitric oxide drug product and delivery system. The litigation against Praxair resulted in Praxair's launch of a competitive nitric oxide product. The Company continues to develop and pursue patent protection of next generation nitric oxide delivery systems and additional uses of nitric oxide and intends to vigorously enforce its intellectual property rights against any parties that may seek to market a generic version of the Company's INOmax product and/or next generation delivery systems.

The Company is involved in various stages of investigation and cleanup related to environmental remediation matters at a number of sites, including those described below. The ultimate cost of site cleanup and timing of future cash outlays is difficult to predict, given the uncertainties regarding the extent of the required cleanup, the interpretation of applicable laws and regulations and alternative cleanup methods. The Company concluded that, as of June 30, 2023 (Successor), it was probable that it would incur remediation costs in the range of $18.1 million to $48.1 million. The Company also concluded that, as of June 30, 2023 (Successor), the best estimate within this range was $36.4 million, of which $1.2 million was included in accrued and other current liabilities and the remainder was included in environmental liabilities on the unaudited condensed consolidated balance sheet as of June 30, 2023 (Successor). While it is not possible at this time to determine with certainty the ultimate outcome of these matters, the Company believes, given the information currently available, that the final resolution of all known claims, after taking into account amounts already accrued, will not have a material adverse effect on its financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.

Lower Passaic River, New Jersey. The Company and approximately 70 other companies ("Cooperating Parties Group" or "CPG") are parties to a May 2007 Administrative Order on Consent with the Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") to perform a remedial investigation and feasibility study ("RI/FS") of the 17-mile stretch known as the Lower Passaic River Study Area (“River”). The Company's potential liability stems from former operations at Lodi and Belleville, New Jersey (the “Lodi facility” and the “Belleville facility” respectively). In April 2014, the EPA issued a revised Focused Feasibility Study ("FFS"), with remedial alternatives to address cleanup of the lower 8-mile stretch of the River. The EPA estimated that the cost for the remediation alternatives ranged from $365.0 million to $3.2 billion and the EPA's preferred approach had an estimated cost of $1.7 billion. In April 2015, the CPG presented a draft of the RI/FS of the River to the EPA that included alternative remedial actions for the entire 17-mile stretch of the River. In March 2016, the EPA issued the Record of Decision ("ROD(s)") for the lower 8 miles of the River with a slight modification on its preferred approach and a revised estimated cost of $1.38 billion. In October 2016, the EPA announced that Occidental Chemicals Corporation had entered into an agreement to develop the remedial design.

In August 2018, the EPA finalized a buyout offer of $280,600 with the Company, limited to its former Lodi facility, for the lower 8 miles of the River. In September 2021, the EPA issued the ROD for the upper 9 miles of the River selecting source control as the remedy for the upper 9 miles with an estimated cost of $441.0 million. In September 2022, the Company entered into a conditional $0.3 million Early Cash-Out Consent Decree (“CD”) with the EPA as a buyout for its portion of the upper part of the River related to its former Lodi facility; finalization of the CD is subject to the EPA approval following the public comment period that was extended until a September 22, 2023 court hearing to determine whether the court will hold a Fairness Hearing or whether the EPA will finalize and approve the conditional CD.

The portion of the liability related to the Belleville facility was discharged against the Company as a result of the Plan. Any reserves associated with this contingency were included in LSTC as of the Effective Date, and any related liabilities were discharged under the Bankruptcy Code.

As of June 30, 2023 (Successor), the Company estimated that its remaining liability related to the River was $21.0 million, which was included within environmental liabilities on the unaudited condensed consolidated balance sheet as of June 30, 2023 (Successor). Despite the issuance of the revised FFS and the RODs for both the lower and upper River by the EPA, the RI/FS by the CPG, and the conditional CD by the EPA, there are many uncertainties associated with the final agreed-upon remediation, potential future liabilities and the Company's allocable share of the remediation. Given those uncertainties, the amounts accrued may not be indicative of the amounts for which the Company may be ultimately responsible and will be refined as the remediation progresses.

Hoffmann, et al. v. ASHTA Chemical, Inc., et al. On June 20, 2023, a complaint was filed against several corporations, including Mallinckrodt LLC, by 75 of the corporations' respective former employees and contractors, and certain family members thereof, alleging various tort claims related to alleged injuries resulting from exposure to mercury at a manufacturing facility in Ashtabula, Ohio. The alleged claims (employer intentional tort, negligence, fraudulent concealment and misrepresentation, premises liability, and civil conspiracy) against Mallinckrodt LLC are based on alleged mercury exposure between 1974 to 1982, when an alleged predecessor in interest to Mallinckrodt owned and operated the Ashtabula facility. The Company believes that the claims arose before June 16, 2022 emergence from bankruptcy and therefore were discharged as a result of the Plan, and the plaintiffs are enjoined from bringing an action against Mallinckrodt LLC. The Company is currently in the process of responding to the complaint.

First Lien Noteholder Matters. The Plan reinstated the issuers' 2025 First Lien Notes in an aggregate principal amount of $495.0 million and the note documents relating thereto. Certain holders of the 2025 First Lien Notes and the trustee in respect thereof (collectively, "Noteholder Parties"), objected to the reinstatement, arguing, among other things, that the Company was required to pay a significant make-whole premium as a condition to reinstatement of the 2025 First Lien Notes. In the course of confirming the Plan, the Bankruptcy Court overruled these objections.

On March 30, 2022, the Noteholder Parties appealed the confirmation order's approval of the reinstatement of the 2025 First Lien Notes to the United States District Court for the District of Delaware ("District Court"). The Company and the 2025 First Lien Notes trustee reached an agreement to hold the trustee's appeal in abeyance, to be determined by the result of the holders' appeals, subject to certain conditions, which was approved by the District Court. Briefing on the merits of the Noteholder Parties' appeals was completed on July 1, 2022. On the same date, the Company moved to dismiss the Noteholder Parties' appeals as equitably moot. Briefing on the motion was completed on August 5, 2022 and supplemental declarations have been filed in the appeal. Oral argument was held on the Noteholder Parties' appeals on May 5, 2023, and the District Court took the matter under advisement.

Sanofi. On October 12, 2021, in the Company's bankruptcy, sanofi-aventis U.S. LLC ("Sanofi") filed a motion asking the Bankruptcy Court for an order determining that, under the Bankruptcy Code, the Company could not discharge alleged royalty obligations owed to Sanofi under an asset purchase agreement through which the Company acquired certain intellectual property from Sanofi's predecessor ("Sanofi Motion"). On November 8, 2021, the Bankruptcy Court denied the Sanofi Motion and ordered that any royalty obligations allegedly owed to Sanofi constitute prepetition unsecured claims that may be discharged under the Bankruptcy Code. On November 19, 2021, Sanofi appealed the Bankruptcy Court's ruling of the Sanofi Motion to the District Court. Briefing was completed on March 10, 2022 and the District Court affirmed on December 20, 2022, for which Sanofi filed a notice of appeal on January 17, 2023. Sanofi had also appealed the Bankruptcy Court's confirmation order, but pursuant to the terms of a settlement between Sanofi and the General Unsecured Claims Trustee appointed pursuant to the Plan, Sanofi dismissed its appeal of the confirmation order with prejudice.

Banks et al. v. Cotter Corporation et al. v. Mallinckrodt LLC, et al. On January 29, 2023, the named plaintiffs in Banks et al. v. Cotter Corporation et al. v. Mallinckrodt LLC, et al. No. 20-CV-1227 (E.D. Mo.) filed a motion to amend their class-action petition to add Mallinckrodt LLC as a defendant. Mallinckrodt LLC filed a motion in the Bankruptcy Court to enjoin this petition on the grounds that these alleged claims were discharged pursuant to the Plan and confirmation order. Following an April 11, 2023 oral argument on the motion to enjoin, the Bankruptcy Court denied the motion, with the effect being that the named plaintiffs were permitted to proceed with their motion to amend their petition. Under the confirmation order, any liability Mallinckrodt LLC may have in connection with the Banks litigation was discharged upon emergence from Chapter 11, with the limited exception of liability that both was asserted in writing prepetition and is indemnified by the U.S. government.

On June 15, 2023, the Company, certain subsidiaries of the Company and the Trust entered into Amendment No. 1 ("Amendment") to that certain opioid deferred cash payments agreement, dated as of June 16, 2022, which was entered into in connection with the Plan. The Amendment extended to June 23, 2023, from June 16, 2023, the date on which the Opioid Deferred