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 other legal proceedings, all in the ordinary course of business, including those described below. Although it is not feasible to predict the outcome of these matters, the Company believes, unless otherwise indicated below, given the information currently available, that the ultimate resolution of any particular matter, or matters that have the same legal or factual issues, will not have a material adverse effect on its financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.

MNK 2011 Inc. (formerly known as Mallinckrodt Inc.) v. U.S. Food and Drug Administration and United States of America. In November 2014, the FDA reclassified the Company's Methylphenidate ER in the Orange Book: Approved Drug Products with Therapeutic Equivalence (“Orange Book”). In November 2014, the Company filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland Greenbelt Division against the FDA and the U.S. (“MD Complaint”) for judicial review of the FDA's reclassification. In July 2015, the court granted the FDA's motion to dismiss with respect to three of the five counts in the MD Complaint and granted summary judgment in favor of the FDA with respect to the two remaining counts (“MD Order”). On October 18, 2016, the FDA initiated proceedings, proposing to withdraw approval of the Company's Abbreviated New Drug Application (“ANDA”) for Methylphenidate ER. On October 21, 2016, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit issued an order placing the Company's appeal of the MD Order in abeyance pending the outcome of the withdrawal proceedings. The parties exchanged documents and in April 2018, the Company filed its submission in support of its position in the withdrawal proceedings. A potential outcome of the withdrawal proceedings is that the Company's Methylphenidate ER products may lose their FDA approval and have to be withdrawn from the market.

U.S. Attorney's Office Subpoena W.D. Va. In August 2023, the Company received a grand jury subpoena from the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Western District of Virginia (“WDVA USAO”). Subsequently, the Company received additional grand jury subpoenas from the WDVA USAO, most recently, in October 2024. The subpoenas seek production of certain data and information for the time period from July 17, 2017 to the present, including information and data relating to the Company’s Specialty Generics controlled substances compliance program, the Company's reporting of suspicious orders for controlled substances, chargebacks and other transactions, financial accounts related to these issues, financial transactions involving prescription drug products, and communications between the Company and the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration.

Branded Products. The Company will continue to vigorously enforce its intellectual property rights relating to its Branded products to prevent the marketing of infringing generic or competing products prior to the expiration of patents covering those products, which, if unsuccessful, could adversely affect the Company's ability to successfully maximize the value of individual Branded products and have an adverse effect on its financial condition, results of operations and cash flows. In the case of litigation filed against potential generic or competing products to Company's Branded products, those litigation matters can either be settled or the litigation pursued through a trial and any potential appeals of the lower court decision.

Generic Products. The Company continues to pursue development of a portfolio of generic products, some of which require submission of a Paragraph IV certification against patents listed in the FDA's Orange Book for the Branded product asserting that the Company's proposed generic product does not infringe and/or the Orange Book patent(s) are invalid and/or unenforceable. In the case of litigation filed against Company for such potential generic products, those litigation matters can either be settled or the litigation pursued through a trial and any potential appeals of the lower court decision in order to successfully launch those generic products in the future.

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 U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware (“District of Delaware”) following notice from Airgas of its ANDA submission seeking approval from the FDA for a generic version of INOmax® (nitric oxide) gas, for inhalation (“INOmax”). 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. The fact discovery phase is ending, and expert discovery is ongoing. In October 2023, the parties completed briefing on the Company’s motion for preliminary injunction seeking to prevent defendants Airgas Therapeutics LLC and Airgas USA LLC from infringing the Company’s U.S. patents during the pendency of the litigation. On February 12, 2024, the court entered stipulations of consent for filing of an amended complaint. On March 22, 2024, the court granted Air Liquide S.A.’s motion to dismiss. AirGas Therapeutics,

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.

Amitiza® (“Amitiza”) Patent Challenges. The Company was granted numerous Japanese patents related to Amitiza. The Company has received notifications of petitions for invalidation trials described below, each of which was filed with the Japan Patent Office (“JPO”) and relates to Amitiza and its use in Japan. The JPO has the authority to determine the validity of each of these patent grants and each of these patent term extension (“PTE”) registration grants. A party may appeal the JPO’s determination to a court of law.

In October 2023, the Company received notification that Sawai Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. (“Sawai”) had filed petitions for two invalidation trials against two PTE registrations for JP Patent No. 4332353. In December 2023, the Company received notification that Sawai had filed a petition for an invalidation trial against JP Patent Appln. No. 2002-586947. In April 2024, the Company received notification that Sawai had filed petitions for invalidation trials with respect to only the 12µg strength of Amitiza against PTE registrations of three additional patents (JP Patent No. 4786866, JP Patent Appln. No. 2003-543603 and JP Patent Appln. No. 2004-564537), and against one patent itself (JP Patent No. 4786866). In May 2024, the Company received notification that Sawai had filed petitions for invalidation trials with respect to only the 12µg strength of Amitiza against PTE registrations of two additional patents (JP Patent No. 4332316, JP Patent Appln. No. 2024-800068 and JP Patent No. 4684334, JP Patent Appln. No. 2024-800069).

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 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 (“Exchange Act”) 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 Opioid-Related Litigation Settlement and the risk of additional filings for bankruptcy protection. The lawsuit seeks monetary damages in an unspecified amount. A lead plaintiff was designated by the court in September 2023 and in December 2023, an amended complaint was filed by the lead plaintiff against Olafsson, Reasons, and Bisaro (“Individual Defendants”). As to the Company, any liability to the plaintiffs in this matter was discharged upon emergence from the 2023 Bankruptcy Proceedings. In September 2024, the court denied the Individual Defendants' motion to dismiss. The Individual Defendants answered the amended complaint on October 21, 2024, and discovery is ongoing.

Alta Fundamental. In September 2024, a lawsuit was filed against the Company, its CEO Sigurdur Olafsson, its CFO Bryan Reasons, the Chairman of the Board Paul Bisaro, its Chief Strategy and Restructuring Officer Jason Goodson, and its former Global Controller and Chief Investor Relations Officer Daniel Speciale, in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, captioned Alta Fundamental Advisors, LLC et al. v. Bisaro et al., No. 24-cv-09245. Plaintiffs allege similar facts to those in the Continental General action, and like in that action, the Alta Fundamental lawsuit generally alleges that the defendants made false and misleading statements related to the Company’s business, operations, and prospects, including its financial strength, its ability to timely make certain payments related to Mallinckrodt’s Opioid-Related Litigation Settlement and the risk of additional filings for bankruptcy protection. The lawsuit alleges claims under Sections 10(b), 18(a), and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and the New Jersey Uniform Securities Act, as well as common law fraud and negligent misrepresentation. The lawsuit seeks monetary damages in an unspecified amount. The defendants must answer, move, or otherwise respond to the complaint by November 25, 2024.

Putative Class Action Securities Litigation (Strougo). In July 2019, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against the Company, its former CEO Mark C. Trudeau, its CFO Bryan M. Reasons, its former Interim CFO George A. Kegler and its former CFO Matthew K. Harbaugh, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, captioned Barbara Strougo v. Mallinckrodt plc, et al. The complaint purports to be brought on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired Mallinckrodt's securities between

February 28, 2018 and July 16, 2019. The lawsuit generally alleges that the defendants made false and/or misleading statements in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder related to the Company's clinical study designed to assess the efficacy and safety of its Acthar® Gel in patients with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. The lawsuit seeks monetary damages in an unspecified amount. On July 30, 2020, the court approved the transfer of the case to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. On August 10, 2020, an amended complaint was filed by the lead plaintiff alleging an expanded putative class period of May 3, 2016 through March 18, 2020 against the Company and Mark C. Trudeau, Bryan M. Reasons, George A. Kegler and Matthew K. Harbaugh, as well as newly named defendants Kathleen A. Schaefer, Angus C. Russell, Melvin D. Booth, JoAnn A. Reed, Paul R. Carter, and Mark J. Casey (collectively with Trudeau, Reasons, Kegler and Harbaugh, the “Strougo Defendants”) The amended complaint claims that the defendants made various false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose various material facts regarding Acthar Gel and its results of operations. On October 1, 2020, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. On March 17, 2022, the Strougo action was administratively closed. On March 29, 2022, the Strougo action was reinstated only with respect to the Strougo Defendants, and the Strougo Defendants filed their reply in support of their motion to dismiss on May 2, 2022. As to the Company, this matter was resolved in bankruptcy with no further liability against the Company. However, the Company has indemnification obligations as to the Strougo Defendants. On December 16, 2022, the District Court issued an order denying the Strougo Defendants' motion to dismiss in all respects. The Strougo Defendants answered the complaint. In June 2024, the parties reached an agreement in principle to resolve all claims in this matter, which will be funded by the Company’s insurance carriers and is not material to the Company’s financial condition, results of operations and cash flows. On September 18, 2024, plaintiffs filed a motion requesting preliminary approval of the class action settlement, approval of notice to the class, and that the court set a date for a hearing to determine whether final approval of the settlement should be granted.

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 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 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 Bankruptcy Court, and the case was transferred back to the District of Delaware at Case No. 22-cv-01502. On June 27, 2023, the District of Delaware entered an order to withdraw reference of the action to the Bankruptcy Court and to transfer the case back to the EDPA to be remanded to state court. On January 9, 2024, the Court of Common Pleas entered an order marking the claims against the Mallinckrodt defendants “discontinued and ended without prejudice.”

In August 2016, a multi-district litigation (“MDL”) was established in the EDPA relating to allegations of antitrust violations with respect to generic pharmaceutical pricing (“Generic Pricing MDL”). Plaintiffs in the Generic Pricing MDL, captioned In re: Generic Pharmaceuticals Pricing Antitrust Litigation, allege a conspiracy of price-fixing and customer allocation among generic drug manufacturers beginning in or around July 2009. The Generic Pricing MDL includes lawsuits against the Company and dozens of other pharmaceutical companies, including a complaint filed by Attorneys General for 51 States, Territories and the District of Columbia seeking monetary damages and injunctive relief ("AG Litigation"). Since its inception, the Generic Pricing MDL has expanded to encompass dozens of pharmaceutical companies and more than 200 generic pharmaceutical drugs. Although the AG Litigation had been consolidated in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania in the Generic Pricing MDL, a recent legislative change exempted state antitrust enforcement actions arising under federal antitrust law from MDLs. As a result, the plaintiffs sought and won a remand to the jurisdiction in which the case was filed, the District of Connecticut. As a result of this change and resulting action, the Company filed its answer to the plaintiffs’ amended complaint in September 2024. While the Company is not subject to monetary damages in connection with these matters as a result of the plan of reorganization related to the 2020 Bankruptcy Proceedings and vigorously disagrees with the plaintiffs' characterization of the facts and law, the Company is not able to reasonably estimate whether any injunctive relief will be granted, and if granted, whether it will materially impact the Company's financial position or operations.

The Company is involved in various stages of investigation and cleanup related to environmental remediation matters at a number of sites, including as 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 September 27, 2024 (Successor), it was probable that it would incur remediation costs in the range of $16.9 million to $51.2 million. The Company also concluded that, as of September 27, 2024 (Successor), the best estimate within this range was $35.4 million, of which $1.0 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 September 27, 2024 (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 U.S. 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 $0.3 million 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. The comment period resulted in a modification to the CD by the EPA which includes a cost reopener of $3.7 billion to the covenant not to sue. The United States filed the modified CD with the U. S. District Court for the District of New Jersey on January 17, 2024, and a motion for entry and response to comments was filed on January 31, 2024. At least one party in the litigation has filed a brief in opposition to the motion to enter the modified CD. The court has not yet ruled on the motion.

As of September 27, 2024 (Successor), the Company estimated that its remaining liability related to the River was $21.1 million, which was included within environmental liabilities on the unaudited condensed consolidated balance sheet as of September 27, 2024 (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.

Sanofi. On October 13, 2021, in the 2020 Bankruptcy Proceedings, 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 certain 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 4, 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 21, 2022, for which Sanofi filed a notice of appeal to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals on January 17, 2023. On April 25, 2024, the Third Circuit ruled in favor of the Company in all respects, stating that royalty obligations owed to Sanofi were discharged in bankruptcy.

Stratatech. Consummation of the 2020 Plan discharged the Company's liability with respect to certain contingent consideration provided to the prior securityholders of Stratatech Corporation (“Stratatech”). However, Russell Smestad, as the representative of these securityholders, has filed a motion in the Bankruptcy Court for an order either (i) granting allowance and immediate payment of an administrative expense claim in the amount of the liability of $20 million or (ii) finding that the claim was not susceptible to discharge and should be paid in full. In May 2024, the parties reached a settlement fully resolving the matter; the settlement amount and its terms are not material to the Company’s financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.